The Board of Management of Wilson's Hospital School v Burke
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Brian O'Moore |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] IEHC 36 |
| Year | 2023 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2022 No. 4507 P] |
[2023] IEHC 36
[2022 No. 4507 P]
THE HIGH COURT
Contempt of court – Interlocutory injunctions – Fine – Plaintiff seeking an order for the sequestration of the defendant’s assets for failure to comply with orders of the High Court – Whether the defendant ought to be subject to a fine
Facts: The High Court (Barrett J), on the 7th of September 2022, made an order in the following terms: (1) an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, Mr Burke, from attending at the premises of Wilson’s Hospital School for the duration of his paid administrative leave; (2) an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from attempting to teach any classes or any students at the school for the duration of his paid administrative leave; (3) an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the appointed substitute teacher’s duties and teaching; (4) an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from failing to comply with the directions of the plaintiff, the school’s Board of Management; and (5) an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing on the property of the school. On the 5th of January 2023, the defendant attended at the school. On the 6th of January 2023, the defendant again attended at the school. On that day, the defendant was handed a letter by Mr Rogers, the Chairman of the plaintiff, which asked the defendant to leave the premises immediately and to undertake in writing by 5 pm that afternoon that he would comply with the order of Barrett J; if this did not happen, the letter went on, an application would be made to the High Court by the school for his 'attachment and/or committal and/or sequestration of [his] assets and/or any other appropriate measure due to [his] ongoing contempt of court'. The letter was signed by Mr Rogers, on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant did not leave the school on the 6th of January 2023, did not give the undertaking sought, and attended at the school on the 9th of January 2023. In those circumstances, the school issued a motion seeking the following: (1) an order for the attachment and committal of the defendant for failure to comply with orders of the High Court made on the 7th of September 2022 on an interlocutory basis restraining the defendant from inter alia attending at the premises of the school; (2) an order for the sequestration of the defendant’s assets within Ireland’s jurisdiction for failure to comply with orders of the High Court made on the 7th of September 2022 on an interlocutory basis restraining the plaintiff from inter alia attending at the premises of the school; (3) such further or other order or direction as the High Court deems fit; and (4) costs, including the cost of the application.
Held by O’Moore J that the defendant had breached the order of Barrett J on the 5th, 6th, and 9th of January 2023 in the manner described. O’Moore J found that the defendant did not accept the validity of the order, and would certainly continue to disobey it unless the Court acted. In particular, O’Moore J noted that the defendant had not hidden his intention to continue to attend at the school, thereby not complying with a number of provisions of the order of the 7th of September 2022.
O’Moore J held that the appropriate measure to deal with the civil contempt of court was to impose a daily fine. O’Moore J held that the defendant could, if he wished, tell the Court that he would obey the order and thereby seek to purge his contempt. O’Moore J held that if the defendant did not do so by 2 pm on Friday the 27th of January 2023, he would then be subject to a fine of €700 for every day or part of the day that passed until he purged his contempt or until the relevant part of the order of Barrett J was vacated. O’Moore J held that the first such day would be Friday the 27th of January 2023 itself. O’Moore J held that the position would be reviewed at the hearing on the 10th of February 2023; at that hearing, it was intended that the costs of the motion would be decided.
Defendant fined.
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Brian O'Moore delivered on the 26 th day of January, 2023 .
While the origins of the dispute between the Plaintiff (“the school”) and the Defendant (“Mr. Burke”), and the progress of this action, have been described elsewhere, the facts relevant to this contempt motion should be set out here. On the 7 th of September 2022 Barrett J made an Order in these terms;
“1. An interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant from attending at the premises of Wilson's Hospital School for the duration of his paid administrative leave.
2. An interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant from attempting to teach any classes or any students at Wilson's Hospital School for the duration of his paid administrative leave.
3. An interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the appointed substitute teacher's duties and teaching.
4. An interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant from failing to comply the directions of the Plaintiff Board.
5. An interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendant from trespassing on the property Wilson's Hospital School.”
At the time of the making of this Order, Mr. Burke was already incarcerated for breach of an Order of Stack J. The Order of Stack J was made on the 30 th of August 2022, on the school's ex parte application. Mr. Burke did not comply with that Order, and on the 5 th of September 2022 he was jailed for contempt by Order of Quinn J.
On the 7 th of September, Mr. Burke was duly served with the Order of Barrett J bearing a penal endorsement. Mr. Burke was then committed to prison for his contempt of the Order made that day. Mr. Burke remained in prison until released by Order of the 21 st of December 2022. Throughout that lengthy period, and despite the opportunity provided by several court appearances, Mr. Burke refused to purge his contempt. The reasons for his release are set out in a Ruling bearing the neutral citation 2022 IEHC 719.
When Mr. Burke was released, Wilson's Hospital School was closed for the Christmas holidays. It reopened on the 5 th of January 2023. That morning, Mr. Burke attended at the school and was seen standing outside the office of the Deputy Principal, Mr. Galligan. Mr. Galligan then informed Mr. Rogers and Mr. Milling (respectively the Chairman of the school's Board of Management and the school Principal) that Mr. Burke was in the school. Mr. Rogers, in his affidavit grounding the current motion, takes up the story as follows (at paragraph 6); —
“Mr. Milling and I went to speak to Mr. Burke. Mr. Milling informed him that he was on administrative leave and that he had been directed previously by Mr. Galligan and myself not to attend the school premises or grounds. Mr. Milling also informed him that he was in breach of a High Court Order. Mr. Burke was asked on a number of occasions to leave the premises and he replied ‘I am here to work’ or words to that effect.”
At paragraph 7 of his affidavit, Mr. Rogers sets out how the school dealt with this fresh breach of the Order of Barrett J
“Ultimately due to Mr Burke's refusal to leave the school premises and his refusal to go into Mr Galligan's office the principal had to set up a workspace for the day on the corridor close to Mr Burke with a table and chair. The principal did this to ensure that there was limited interaction, if any, between Mr Burke and the students. Mr Burke was insistent on staying on the corridor and there was a genuine concern about what interactions and disruption could occur. The principal also cornered of the portion of the corridor where Mr Burke was located for the same reason signs indicating that there was no entry and that students were to use an alternative route”
While, at the hearing of this motion, Mr. Burke cavilled with the accuracy of the phrase ‘cornered off’ he gave no evidence on affidavit materially contradicting any of this testimony on the part of Mr. Rogers.
On the 6 th of January 2023, Mr. Burke again attended at the school. Again, Mr. Milling set up a workstation in the corridor so that he could ‘observe the situation’ while getting some work done. On that day, Mr. Burke was handed a letter by Mr. Rogers, which asked Mr. Burke to leave the premises immediately and to undertake in writing by 5 pm that afternoon that he would comply with the Order of Barrett J. If this did not happen, the letter went on, an application would be made to this Court by the school for his ‘attachment and/or committal and/or sequestration of [his] assets and/or any other appropriate measure due to [his] ongoing contempt of court.’ The letter was signed by Mr. Rogers, on behalf of the Board of Management. The evidence is that Mr. Burke did not leave the school on the 6 th of January, did not give the undertaking sought, and attended at the school on Monday the 9 th of January.
In these circumstances, the school issued a motion seeking the following;
“1. An Order for the Attachment and Committal of the Defendant for failure to comply with Orders of this Honourable Court made on 7 September 2022 on an interlocutory basis restraining the Plaintiff from inter alia attending at the premises of Wilson's Hospital School
2. An Order for the sequestration of the Defendant's assets within this jurisdiction for failure to comply with Orders of this Honourable Court made on 7 September 2022 on an interlocutory basis restraining the Plaintiff from inter alia attending at the premises of Wilson's Hospital School.
3. Such further or other order or direction as this Honourable deems fit;
4. Costs, including the cost of this application.”
The motion was to be returnable to the 11 th of January 2023 but it could not be heard on that day. This was because the motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burke v Ó Longáin and Another
...given by the Court to indicate that he would comply with the Court Orders. On the 26 th January 2023, O'Moore J gave a judgment ( [2023] IEHC 36) on a further motion for attachment and committal (or in the alternative sequestration of Mr. Burke's assets) issued by the school. He found that ......