Judgment: 2023-03-09 · Court archive

High Court sets Wilson’s Hospital School trial for 28 March

The court fixed a six-day trial in the school’s action against Enoch Burke and set deadlines for written submissions and trial books. Three interlocutory matters remained to be decided.

The High Court · [2023] IEHC 123

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • The Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School (Plaintiff)
  • Enoch Burke (Defendant)
  • Brian O’Moore (Judge)
What

The court fixed a six-day trial in the school’s action against Enoch Burke and set deadlines for written submissions and trial books. Three interlocutory matters remained to be decided.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The school later told the court it had sent documents to Burke on 8 March in response to his discovery request. Burke confirmed he had received documents and raised “serious concerns” about the response, but asked the court to fix a trial date because an early hearing was essential for the reliefs he sought. The judge concluded that discovery was no longer an obstacle to setting the date.

The High Court has directed that the trial of the Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School’s action against Enoch Burke begin on 28 March 2023, after a dispute over discovery and the school’s late legal submissions delayed the setting of a trial date.

In a direction delivered on 9 March, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said the court had been working towards an early trial. The parties had been told in February that a March trial was achievable if directions on discovery and witness statements were met. Both sides delivered witness statements, but on 1 March Burke said the school’s discovery was still outstanding, so a trial date could not then be fixed.

The school later told the court it had sent documents to Burke on 8 March in response to his discovery request. Burke confirmed he had received documents and raised “serious concerns” about the response, but asked the court to fix a trial date because an early hearing was essential for the reliefs he sought. The judge concluded that discovery was no longer an obstacle to setting the date.

The school’s written legal submissions had been due on 3 March. Its solicitors said they were not ready and proposed delivering them by 13 March, apologising for not asking the court to extend the deadline. The judge said the school had unilaterally extended the deadline without notifying the court, and that the delay was unacceptable. Burke had not received the school’s submissions by the time of the direction.

The court ordered the school to deliver its submissions to Burke by 4pm on 13 March. Burke was given until 4pm on 22 March to serve his submissions on the school’s solicitors. The school’s solicitors must lodge the trial books, including books of authorities to be agreed if possible, by 4pm on 24 March.

The direction set the trial date and revised procedural deadlines; it did not decide the merits of either side’s case. The judge said three interlocutory matters remained: review of Burke’s compliance with court orders, and the costs of the stay motion and contempt motion. Decisions on those matters were due during the week beginning 13 March.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review