Ammi Burke complains of taxpayers’ money being spent amid 'hold up' in unfair dismissal case

Solicitor Ammi Burke (pictured) refused to retract an allegation that Peter Ward “directed” WRC officer Kevin Baneham to “break the law” by adopting this adversarial approach. File photo: Collins Courts

Solicitor Ammi Burke has complained that taxpayers’ money was spent while the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) hearing of her complaint of unfair dismissal from law firm Arthur Cox was “held up”.

In April 2022, WRC adjudication officer Kevin Baneham rejected her claim of unfair dismissal, saying the hearing could not proceed due to persistent interruptions by members of the Burke family.

Ms Burke and her mother declined to accept his earlier decisions, at 11.45am on April 1, 2022, refusing Ms Burke’s request to summon an Arthur Cox partner and a human resources director to give evidence and to order the firm to discover certain emails, he said.

He said he could not swear Arthur Cox’s managing partner at 4pm to continue with the evidence due to the objections.

Making submissions on Wednesday as part of her High Court challenge to the WRC’s rejection of her complaint, Ms Burke said the WRC hearing was held up and “taxpayers’ money is spent while an adjudicating officer is sitting there”.

“Why? All to ensure the truth does not get out,” she said.

She accused Mr Baneham of “capitulating” to a “direction” by Arthur Cox’s senior counsel, Peter Ward, for the hearing to be conducted in an adversarial manner, rather than under an inquisitorial procedure that she contends should have been followed.

Ms Burke refused to retract an allegation that Mr Ward “directed” WRC officer Kevin Baneham to “break the law” by adopting this adversarial approach.

Mr Ward said he had refrained from objecting to earlier submissions of Ms Burke, but she had now “strayed into the utterly objectionable”. It was not appropriate for a solicitor “who should know better” to go far beyond her pleaded case, he said, and he wanted her to withdraw the statement.

Ms Burke said she cannot withdraw the comment “because it is the truth”.

Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger, who proceeded to hear the judicial review case after rejecting Ms Burke’s application for her recusal, asked to be directed to where Ms Burke’s point was pleaded in her legal papers.

The judge and the applicant conversed back and forth on this, without finding the point in the pleadings, before Mr Ward said he was happy to deal with the matter when replying to Ms Burke’s submissions on Thursday.

On a number of occasions during the hearing, Ms Justice Bolger told Ms Burke that she has a duty to behave appropriately in court. The judge also asked Ms Burke not to point her finger at her while making submissions, as it was “quite distracting”. Ms Burke said she was behaving appropriately.

Earlier, Ms Justice Bolger delivered a 16-page judgment explaining why she was refusing to recuse herself from hearing the case.

The judge left the courtroom for several minutes so the parties could consider her ruling. Ms Burke opened her case upon the judge’s return.

During Ms Burke’s submissions, Ms Justice Bolger said she was “anxious” the High Court stays within the parameters of the claim Ms Burke has been permitted to pursue.

Ms Burke said there is “no limit” on the duty of the High Court: “Everything before the WRC, facts or otherwise, is up for grabs.” There may be a “fear of unturning certain stones in this litigation”, she said, but “there should be no stone unturned”.

The WRC and Arthur Cox are due to make submissions on Thursday.