A Westmeath school is seeking to recover approximately €300,000 in legal costs from jailed teacher Enoch Burke, stemming from the first year of a protracted legal dispute. The application for costs recovery, relating to litigation between August 2022 and July 2023, was heard on Tuesday by Barry Magee, the chief legal costs adjudicator, who is expected to issue a determination in April.
The school’s legal costs accountant, Anthony McMahon, described the adjudication as “unusual” in that it seeks only to recover costs already paid by the school’s insurer, and at rates “heavily discounted” from standard commercial fees. He emphasized that the case isn’t about securing damages, stating, “Here’s not about a ‘win’ for the school… there is no money here, no damages, just litigation that had to be endured.”
The origins of the dispute lie in a disagreement over the school’s request that teachers use a student’s preferred pronouns. Burke objected to this request, citing his religious beliefs, initially at a staff meeting, then in emails, and publicly during a school service in June 2022. This led to a disciplinary process and subsequent suspension. Despite the suspension, Burke continued to attend the school premises, prompting the school to seek a court injunction.
The legal battle, which has now entered its fourth year, has become increasingly complex due to Burke’s repeated non-compliance with court orders. This non-compliance has resulted in multiple periods of incarceration, the sequestration of his assets, and the development of extensive case law. Eight further bills of costs are currently being drafted, and High Court judge Brian Cregan is scheduled to assess additional costs on , including those related to a receiver appointed to collect the €225,000 in fines imposed on Burke for violating court orders to stay away from the school.
The current costs adjudication focuses on expenses incurred from Burke’s suspension in August 2022, through a May 2023 High Court judgment upholding the lawfulness of the disciplinary process, and subsequent July 2023 orders awarding costs to the school. While the school later decided to dismiss Burke, his appeal against that dismissal remains unresolved.
Burke appeared remotely at Tuesday’s hearing from Mountjoy Prison, where he is currently serving a fifth term of imprisonment for civil contempt of court. He requested an adjournment of the adjudication, citing an “imminent” application to the Court of Appeal for permission to file a late appeal against the May 2023 judgment. He argued that the litigation stemmed from an “illegitimate instruction” regarding pronoun usage and should not have been initiated.
This request for an adjournment was denied, with the High Court noting that no stay had been placed on its July 2023 costs order. Following the denial, McMahon detailed various items within the bill of costs. He noted that some fees had been voluntarily reduced by 15 percent, and that the school’s insurer had approved all payments.
The costs incurred reflect the complexity and urgency of the situation, with work often required at short notice, including pre-trial hearings and appeals before multiple judges. Some hearings directly resulted in fines being levied against Burke and his subsequent committal to prison. A sum of €101,872 initially sought for work completed prior to the May 2023 hearing was reduced to €78,061 by the insurer.
McMahon explained the engagement of two senior counsel was necessitated by the complexity of the case and the number of hearings, some of which were scheduled with little notice. The senior counsel were paid a reduced rate of €25,000 each, plus refreshers, while junior counsel received a brief fee of €12,000. McMahon considered these fees to be “fine,” and highlighted that no charges were incurred for 241 hours of work performed by legal trainees.
The Attorney General, Rossa Fanning, recently stated that no criminal contempt proceedings will be pursued against Burke or members of his family, despite repeated disruptions to court proceedings. Fanning cited factors including the amount of court time consumed by the case, the associated legal costs to the taxpayer, and the potential for criminal proceedings to be counterproductive, potentially reinforcing a “sense of martyrdom” rather than achieving compliance. This decision was made after careful consideration of court transcripts and previous High Court judgments.
