About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 208
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice David Nolan

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice David Nolan remarked: “It is noteworthy that the defendant is a schoolteacher, someone who should be setting a good example to students by his words and deeds. His obligations and duties to his pupils seem to have gone out the window in pursuit of his agenda.”

Background

The position in relation to the payment of outstanding fines due and owing to the State by the defendant, Enoch Burke, on foot of his contempt of court was reviewed by Mr Justice Nolan in circumstances where he was alleged to have continued to attend the premises of Wilson’s Hospital School on dates in January and February 2025, and had managed to gain access to the school building on several occasions.

Despite the court having directed the defendant to furnish information on affidavit as to his income and expenses so that the court could decide what further steps should be taken, his affidavit dated 28 February 2025 stated inter alia that “I cannot in all good conscience engage in this exercise. No judge has the right to strip a citizen of his livelihood because he will not accept the denial of his constitutional rights.”

In March, the notice parties had made submissions as to the appropriate type of action which could be taken to enforce the court’s orders and to ensure the collection of the fines due and owing to the State, and orders appointing a receiver by way of equitable execution and garnishee orders had been made.

The High Court

Mr Justice Nolan opined that it was patently clear that the defendant had breached the order of Mr Justice Owens, “a contempt which the court cannot ignore”.

The judge firstly considered the principles governing the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution.

Noting that historically, the view was that a receiver cannot be appointed in respect of future salary, earnings or wages, Mr Justice Nolan considered that in light of inter alia the Supreme Court in ACC Loan Management v Rickard [2019] IESC 29 and the particular circumstances of the case, that route was potentially available to the court.

The court had regard to the fact that the sums sought to be subject to the appointment of a receiver were not an emollient by way of salary or fee derived from office, and did not constitute a salary “for work done” as per Rickard.

The court also had particular regard to the view in Rickard that s.28(8) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877 must now be interpreted to make allowances for “changes in the law” and the number of areas seen as critical to commercial life in the 21st century.

Accordingly, Mr Justice Nolan determined that the court, on being satisfied that it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution, has the power to do so.

Turning to the facts of the case, the judge found it “very significant” that the party to whom the defendant owes fines is the same party making payment for his administrative leave and was satisfied that having considered the analysis of Mr Justice John MacMenamin in Rickard, “the appointment of a receiver is a matter of practice rather than jurisdiction” and added: “If this was a matter of jurisdiction before the Judicature Act, I did not believe it survived (or ought not to have survived) the expansion of jurisdiction effected by that Act.”

In circumstances where the defendant refused to furnish details of his income and expenses, in itself a breach of the court’s order, the judge pointed out that there had been no evidence before the court of any hardship which might arise.

Emphasising that the court must have the power to police its own orders and that the appointment of a receiver would not impose any significant administrative burden, Mr Justice Nolan explained that the court had appointed a receiver by way of equitable execution on 18 March 2025.

The judge also explained that in circumstances where it was discovered that there were monies in the defendant’s Bank of Ireland account, the notice parties had moved an application for a conditional order of garnishee and that that order had been granted in respect of the bank account returnable to 25 March 2025.

Mr Justice Nolan noted that when the matter returned to court, the defendant did not deal in any way with the issue of whether the conditional order of garnishee should not be made absolute. Instead, he “accused this court of uttering false statements and was generally insulting and abusive” and “continued to shout over me, refused to answer my questions and ultimately when I gave him some minutes to make his assertions, they simply were not to point”, he said.

The judge considered that in circumstances where the defendant had refused to make any relevant submissions on the issue, the appropriate order was to make the conditional order of garnishee absolute.

The court commented: “It is worth setting out the nature of the contempt which the defendant is guilty of. As the decisions of at least four judges of the High Court have made very clear, the contempt which the defendant is guilty of is civil contempt, or contempt in the face of the court. The case law suggests that the purpose of imposing a penalty on somebody who is guilty of contempt in the face of the court, is not meant to be punitive but is in fact meant to be coercive.”

Noting that the daily fine of €1,400 would continue to apply for every day that the defendant refuses to purge his contempt, the court continued:

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court having been informed that the money in the defendant’s account was paid to the court’s fines account and that the order of attachment was no longer necessary, the court vacated that part of the order of 25 March 2025 whereby the account was attached in the sum of €79,100 to answer the fines imposed by the court.

The court also made costs orders in favour of the plaintiff and the Attorney General, with the receiver’s costs having been adjourned with liberty to apply.

The Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School v Enoch Burke (No. 4) [2025] IEHC 208