'The court is horrified' - High Court dismisses Ammi Burke's case due to her conduct

The judge said she would give a written ruling explaining her decision later, but she gave an indicative view that the WRC and Arthur Cox were entitled to their full legal costs

Ammi Burke (pictured) was unhappy about the judge having supplied printed copies of case law the judge said was cited in submissions by the WRC and Arthur Cox. Photo: Collins Courts

Solicitor Ammi Burke’s challenge to the rejection of her claim of unfair dismissal from law firm Arthur Cox has been dismissed at the High Court.

It follows her refusal to cease reciting her objections while other lawyers were attempting to speak. Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger granted an application from the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and Arthur Cox to dismiss the case in its entirety due to Ms Burke’s conduct, which was “undoubtedly an abuse of process”.

She would give a written ruling explaining her decision at a later stage, but she gave an indicative view that the WRC and Arthur Cox were entitled to their full legal costs. The judge apologised to lawyers representing the WRC and Arthur Cox for having to endure the “unacceptable, appalling situation”.

“The court is horrified that any litigant, and in particular a qualified solicitor, would conduct themselves in this manner before the court,” she said. The judge was speaking while Ms Burke was continuously repeating her complaint, at a raised volume, that the court was “litigating the case of Arthur Cox and the WRC”.

Ms Burke was unhappy about the judge having supplied printed copies of case law the judge said was cited in submissions by the WRC and Arthur Cox. Reciting from a piece of paper, Ms Burke repeatedly asked the judge to take back the printed copies. Two of her brothers, Josiah and Isaac, and her mother, Martina, sat quietly in the row behind her.

However, Martina Burke joined Ms Burke in telling the judge “God will judge you” after the judge said she was dismissing the case.

'Deliberate and conscious obstruction'

As the loud oration continued in the background, Mr Ward urged the court to dismiss the case on account of Ms Burke’s “deliberate and conscious obstruction of the administration of justice” following “fair warning” from the court.

“This behaviour we are being subjected to is precisely the behaviour the adjudication officer was subjected to by Ms Burke and her mother for an entire day,” he said. Catherine Donnelly, senior counsel for the WRC, said she tends to adopt Mr Ward’s submissions.

Ms Justice Bolger asked for authorities that would guide the court on whether it is possible to dismiss a judicial review case due to an applicant’s conduct. Mr Ward said the situation was “probably unprecedented”. The judge left the courtroom four times on Thursday due to Ms Burke persisting to speak over her and counsel.

Earlier, Ms Donnelly had earlier been attempting to make submissions for the WRC. Ms Justice Bolger said it was “appalling” that Ms Donnelly had to speak while Ms Burke was continuing to voice her discontent. She gave Ms Donnelly permission to raise her voice to be heard.

However, the judge paused the hearing after the stenographer indicated she could not transcribe what Ms Donnelly was saying. When the judge returned several minutes later Ms Burke resumed her speech, resulting in Mr Ward’s application for the proceedings to be dismissed.