- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
The Board Of Management Of Wilson's Hospital School v Burke [No. 8] (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
This was the High Court’s eighth judgment in proceedings between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and it addressed whether three relatives of the Defendant should be excluded from future High Court hearings involving the Defendant’s dispute about his dismissal from the Plaintiff’s school. [Para 11] The issue arose after an earlier related judgment in which the court found two of those relatives in contempt and imposed imprisonment, while indicating that it was considering an exclusion order. [Para 13][Para 15] The court gave notice of the proposed order, invited written submissions, received submissions on 25 March 2026, and later gave further opportunities to make additional submissions before concluding that the relatives had been fully on notice. [Para 16][Para 18][Para 20][Para 22][Para 24][Para 25][Para 27]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court had power, under its inherent jurisdiction and/or section 11 of the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020, to exclude the Defendant’s three relatives from physical attendance at future hearings involving the Defendant. [Para 15][Para 16][Para 44]
- Whether Article 34.1 of the Constitution gave those relatives a right, as members of the public, to attend the hearings in person notwithstanding their conduct. [Para 47][Para 50][Para 51][Para 52]
- Whether the judge lacked impartiality, and whether the relatives had been given a fair opportunity to respond to the proposed order. [Para 60][Para 65][Para 27]
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The relatives argued that the court had no power to make the exclusion order. [Para 44]
- They argued that Article 34.1 gave them a constitutional right, as members of the public, to attend in person. [Para 47][Para 51]
- They argued that the judge was not impartial because he had been critical of the Defendant over time. [Para 60]
- They argued that they needed more specific details of the alleged misconduct in order to defend themselves. [Para 65]
- They also complained about the amount of notice given for submissions on the proposed order. [Para 24][Para 25]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Walsh v. the Minister for Justice and Others [2019] IESC 15 | The court’s need to maintain order; the permissibility of removing disruptive persons; and the importance of a courtroom remaining a place where justice can be administered fairly and calmly. | The judge relied on the quoted passages to hold that persistent disruption, refusal to accept rulings, and intimidating conduct justify exclusion from the courtroom to protect the administration of justice. [Para 31][Para 34][Para 36][Para 38][Para 41][Para 43][Para 44] |
| Burke v. Ó Longáin [2026] IEHC132 | The earlier related judgment in which contempt findings and the possibility of an exclusion order were raised. | The judge treated that earlier judgment as the starting point for the present application and as the source of the notice previously given to the relatives. [Para 13][Para 15][Para 16] |
| Burke v. O'Longain [2026] IEHC 132 | Further details of the relatives’ conduct and contempt findings. | The judge referred to this later-spelled citation when explaining the prior findings and the continuing pattern of disruption. [Para 32][Para 70][Para 71] |
| Board of Management of Wilsons Hospital School v. Burke [2025] IEHC 365 | The earlier procedural history and repeated interruptions at prior hearings. | The judge directed readers to the earlier judgment for the detailed chronology of interruptions at multiple hearings. [Para 69] |
| R v. Webb ex p. Hawker | Historical support for the court’s power to remove a disruptive person from court. | The case was cited through the quoted commentary in support of the common-law power to maintain order and expel disruptive persons. [Para 41][Para 43] |
| Willis v. Maclachlan (1876) 45 L.J.Q.B. 689 | The proposition that a court may turn out a person whose conduct hinders the business of the court or disturbs due decorum. | The judge relied on the cited passage to reinforce that the power to exclude disruptive persons is long established and consistent with the administration of justice. [Para 41][Para 43] |
| Burke v Pike and Others | Another case in which similar disruptions were said to have occurred. | The judge mentioned it as part of the factual background showing that the same disruptive conduct had continued in other proceedings. [Para 15][Para 16] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The judge held that courts have long possessed the power to maintain order, remove disruptive persons, and exclude them from further hearings when necessary. [Para 30][Para 41][Para 43] He relied heavily on Walsh to explain that disruption, refusal to accept rulings, and concerted intimidation are not merely discourteous but can amount to bullying and an attack on the fairness of the hearing itself. [Para 32][Para 34][Para 36][Para 38]
The court concluded that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction was sufficient to make the exclusion order, so it was unnecessary to decide the matter under section 11 of the 2020 Act or under any practice direction. [Para 44] The judge also held that the relatives had received ample notice and multiple opportunities to make submissions, so their fair-procedure complaint failed. [Para 16][Para 22][Para 25][Para 27]
On the constitutional argument, the court accepted that Article 34.1 protects public justice, but held that it does not give any individual a right to disrupt proceedings or shout at judges and opposing counsel. [Para 50][Para 51] The judge further held that excluding specific individuals does not convert a hearing into one held in camera, because the hearing remains public and other members of the public may still attend. [Para 52][Para 53][Para 55]
The judge rejected the impartiality complaint because his views were formed from the relatives’ conduct before him over an extended period, including repeated interruptions, refusals to leave court, and prior contempt findings. [Para 60][Para 66][Para 67][Para 71][Para 75][Para 77][Para 82] He described the conduct as coordinated, disruptive, intimidating, and a serious waste of court and Garda time. [Para 66][Para 67][Para 76][Para 78][Para 81][Para 83][Para 87]
Holding and Implications
Holding: the court ordered that the three relatives are prohibited from attending in person at future High Court hearings involving the Defendant’s dismissal dispute and related litigation, but they may attend remotely and see and hear the proceedings. [Para 89][Para 90][Para 91] The judge warned that any breach of the order would be treated as contempt of court. [Para 92][Para 94]
The direct effect is to bar physical attendance while preserving public remote access to the hearings. [Para 91][Para 93]
Alert