C: Wikimedia Commons (L) and YouTube (R)

High Court Decision on order to sequester Enoch Burke’s assets expected late next week

The High Court has said it expects a ruling on the induction sought by Wilson’s Hospital School against teacher Enoch Burke to be handed down by late next week.

Wilson’s Hospital School is seeking an order to sequester Burke’s assets as a means of compelling him to stop attending at the school, which Counsel for the school, Rosemary Mallon BL  argued he has been doing since it reopened after the Christmas break. 

Mallon said the school was not seeking to have Burke imprisoned again. 

During the hearing of Burke’s own injunction Mallon argued that anyone seeking equitable relief from the courts “must do equity” to receive equity, saying that Burke’s continuing breaches of the orders of the court were “not the actions of somebody doing equity”.  

She continued that  Burke is “knowingly” continuing to breach the court’s orders because he does not agree with them, and that this should count as sufficient basis to refuse his application for an injunction. 

Burke argues that the school is attempting to force him to “participate in transgenderism” while “ignoring” his ‘constitutional right to live according to his Christian faith’. 

He said he believes he has a “strong case” in pursuit his own injunction against the school, and expressed frustration at being unable to return to teaching his classes at the school. 

Burke is seeking injunctive relief from the courts to prevent Wilson’s Hospital School, from holding disciplinary proceedings against him – scheduled for the 19th of January – which arose in circumstances where the teacher refused to refer to a male student by a new name and transgender pronouns.

Burke is also seeking to prevent the school from terminating his contract with them. 

During the hearing of the case, which began last Wednesday, Burke argued that the then school principal, Ms. Niamh McShane, had made false and misleading claims about his conduct arising from an exchange he had with her at a school dinner party. 

He said that it was improper that the disciplinary proceedings against him had been started at level four, bypassing lower level proceedings, stating that this implied that he was being investigated for “serious misconduct” when he had done nothing wrong. 

He said that it was improper that the disciplinary proceedings against him had been started at level four, bypassing lower level proceedings, stating that this implied that he was being investigated for “serious misconduct” when he had done nothing wrong. 

He said the disciplinary proceedings, should they go ahead, were “unconstitutional, invalid, posed a great risk of serious injustice” and that dismissal of teachers was “rare” and carried

Share mdi-share-variant mdi-twitter mdi-facebook mdi-whatsapp mdi-telegram mdi-linkedin mdi-email mdi-printer mdi-chevron-left Prev Next mdi-chevron-right Related
Comments are closed

Do you favour HAVING a referendum to insert a right to housing into the constitution?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...