About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 104
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice David Nolan

Delivering judgment for the High Court on Friday, Mr Justice David Nolan observed that “there is no reason in principle why the court cannot enforce a fine by way of an order of Garnishee. If it is the case that the court can imprison a contemnor and appoint a sequestrator (Order 42 Rule 4), then it makes no sense that the often-used method of enforcement in debt cases would not be available in matters of such importance as the enforcement of court orders.”

Background

The position in relation to Mr Enoch Burke’s contempt of court was reviewed by Mr Justice Nolan in circumstances where he had been released from jail but continued to refuse to purge his contempt by undertaking to abstain from trespassing at Wilson’s Hospital School and where he failed to pay any of the fines which were increased from €700 to €1400 per day in Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School v Burke (No.1) [2024] IEHC 746.

The High Court

Mr Justice Nolan explained that on the last occasion that the matter was before him, he had asked the Attorney General and representatives of the Departments of Education and Finance to come to court for the purposes of considering why the defendant’s bank account should not be sequestered or why his salary should not be used to satisfy the fines.

The judge considered that in circumstances where the defendant had “doubled down” on his contempt of court by continuing to attend and by actually entering the school building, and where the defendant had failed to pay any of the fines imposed despite continuing to be in receipt of his salary, it was now appropriate to consider alternative methods to ensure compliance with the court’s orders.

The State made submissions on civil contempt, sequestration, orders of garnishee and the Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC). The plaintiff argued that one of the primary obligations of the State is to provide a court system which executes the orders that it pronounces and so the role of enforcing the court order should fall to the State.

Having regard to the judgment of Mr Justice Brian O’Moore in The Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School v Burke [2023] IEHC 36, Mr Justice Nolan had “little doubt” that the court had the power to impose fines, finding that the “real issue is how to enforce the collection of those fines”.

The court considered that the “hierarchy of recognized applicants are, firstly, the party who has obtained the order, which in this case is the plaintiff. Then if he/it decides not to do so, the Attorney General, if the public interest requires him to intervene in order to enforce the order. Finally, the court may act of its own volition in exceptional cases of clear contempt in which it is urgent and imperative to act immediately…”

Noting that both the State and the plaintiff were in agreement that all methods of enforcement of money judgments were available to enforce the payment of the fines, the court was satisfied that by the interaction of Order 42 rules 2, 25 and 27 RSC and in light of Trafalgar Developments Limited v. Mazepin [2022] IEHC 167, Meath County Council v Hendy [2023] IECA 55 and Moorview Developments Ltd. v. First Active plc [2009] IEHC 214, even if the court did not have the power to direct that the defendant’s salary be paid to satisfy the fines pursuant to the RSC, the inherent jurisdiction of the court would facilitate this.

The court considered that an order of garnishee would be more appropriate than sequestration, in circumstances where the effect of the latter “would be to simply hold the monies pending further court determination”.

Mr Justice Nolan highlighted: “While our neighboring jurisdiction has the benefit of a Contempt of Court Act, we do not have the benefit of such an act. It seems to me that this lacuna should be addressed as a matter of urgency, but that does not get over the present difficulties.”

However, he was nonetheless satisfied that there was no reason in principle why the court could not enforce the fine by way of an order of garnishee.

In those circumstances, the judge considered that the next question was who should so act to enforce the payment of the fines and the methodology for collecting any future fines imposed on the defendant.

Deciding that the Attorney General would be the appropriate party to move such an application, the court made the Attorney General and the Ministers of Education and Finance notice parties to the proceedings, noting that “the plaintiff has already expanded significant sums of money and time in pursuing the defendant. As Mr White pointed out, all the school wants to do is act as a school. To that end, it seems to me that it would be inappropriate to ask the plaintiff to act as a form of policeman in this case.”

Conclusion

In circumstances where the amount outstanding to the State was calculated to be €79,100.00, Mr Justice Nolan inter alia made a conditional order of garnishee in relation to Mr Burke’s salary of approximately €48,000 gross per year and made the case returnable to 7 March 2025.

The Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School v Burke (No.3) [2025] IEHC 104