Enoch Burke, an educator, continues to grapple with increasing legal expenses following continued legal decisions made against him. The ongoing two-year legal tussle with Wilson’s Hospital School in Co Westmeath has been estimated to have accrued astronomical legal costs so far, and it’s still far from resolution.
On Monday, Mr Justice Mark Sanfey of the High Court argued that it would be a gross misconduct of justice to not grant the school its legal costs in regards to Burke’s unsuccessful attempt to challenge an upheld court order from May 2023, linked to his suspension in August the previous year.
Burke’s lack of respect to the law in court proceedings relating to the legitimacy of his suspension resulted in his prohibition from participating and the case was ruled in his absence by Mr Justice Alexander Owens last year. The judge issued a permanent injunction barring Burke from the school premises.
Burke’s disregard for court directives to stay away from the school, which had relieved him of his teaching duties the previous January, resulted in him serving over 400 days in jail for contempt over the previous two years. His persisting defiance of earlier orders not to visit the school meant he was freed from Mountjoy Prison by legal mandate last June.
Mr Justice Sanfey dismissed Burke’s objections concerning the legitimacy of Justice Owens’ orders last July 19th. Following that ruling, Burke resumed loitering around the school property when it reopened after the summer break.
The school requested the costs linked to Burke’s failed application in July. Burke challenged the request on the grounds of an “outstanding constitutional justice matter”. Among other disputes, he claimed that the judge ignored the central issue, which was supposedly the “absence of legal foundation” for the prior school principal’s instruction for teachers to use a student’s preferred name and pronouns.
Knocking down the reasons outlined in Mr Burke’s written appeals concerning costs, Mr Justice Sanfey stated that Mr Burke had “completely failed” in his application. His written pleas were essentially an attempt to reargue the matter and bring up points already dismissed by the court.
Mr Justice Sanfey noted “no signs” indicating Mr Burke’s course of action was sensible relating to the issues in his application that he brought forth or defended. He remarked, “The appeal was unsuitable and should have never been filed.”
The institution was “completely victorious” in its defence, and Mr Justice Sanfey deduced that the only “injustice” would occur if the school was denied its cost recovery.