The Court of Appeal has dismissed Enoch Burke’s appeal against orders barring him from attending Wilson’s Hospital School while he was on paid administrative leave and restraining him from teaching there. The court’s decision concerned injunctions and related High Court rulings, not the final lawfulness of the school’s decision to place him on leave.
The appeal challenged an interim order made by Stack J. on 30 August 2022 and an interlocutory injunction granted by Barrett J. on 7 September. The orders restrained Burke from attending school premises, attempting to teach, interfering with a substitute teacher’s duties, failing to comply with directions from the school’s board, and trespassing on school property. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against both orders.
The court said the injunction application arose after Burke continued to attend school despite being placed on paid administrative leave and directed to stay away. It found Stack J. was entitled to grant interim relief. In considering Barrett J.’s order, it noted that Burke had not filed a replying affidavit and had declined an opportunity to seek time to do so. The court also said the injunction was justified by the disruption his continued attendance could cause and the fact that he remained on full pay.
The dispute began after the school principal told staff in May 2022 that, at a pupil’s request and with parental support, the pupil would use a new name and the pronouns “they/their”. Burke objected, citing his religious beliefs. The judgment records conflicting accounts of how he raised the issue at a staff meeting and what happened when he interrupted a school chapel service in June. The court noted that the disciplinary allegations had not been finally determined.
The appeal also addressed later applications Burke made to the High Court. In September, Dignam J. made no order on several requested injunctions after the school undertook not to hold a scheduled disciplinary meeting and to give at least three days’ written notice of any further disciplinary or investigation meeting. Roberts J. refused Burke’s request to stop the paid administrative leave. The Court of Appeal said the criticisms of those decisions had not been made out, while noting that those rulings did not determine the underlying employment dispute.
The Court of Appeal said the central questions about the lawfulness of the leave and disciplinary process remained for trial. It dismissed the appeal and did not consider any request for positive orders that could be enforced while Burke continued to breach court orders. The separate contempt and committal decision was not under appeal.