Solicitor Ammi Burke has been ordered to pay the legal costs incurred in the Court of Appeal by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and her former employer Arthur Cox.
Her appeal was dismissed last April, with the Court of Appeal finding the High Court had been justified in throwing out her judicial review mid-hearing when faced with Ms Burke’s “utterly appalling and egregious” behaviour.
Ms Burke, of Castlebar, Co Mayo, had wanted the courts to overturn the WRC’s rejection of her complaint alleging she was unfairly dismissed in late 2019 from Arthur Cox, where she was a junior associate. The law firm denied unfairly dismissing her.
A WRC adjudicating officer also ceased hearing her complaint amid “sustained and deliberate obstruction and disruptions” by Ms Burke’s mother, Martina Burke.
The Court of Appeal based its recent decision on written submissions after cutting short its oral hearing of Ms Burke’s appeal due to her interruptions.
On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal ruled that she should be liable to pay necessary costs incurred by the WRC and Arthur Cox in successfully fighting her appeal.
It rejected as “misconceived on a fundamental level” Ms Burke’s submissions asking the court to refrain from making a costs order against her.
Her request was based on complaints about how the appeal hearing was conducted and criticisms of the court’s judgment, the judges said.
“An unsuccessful appellant cannot avoid a costs order by impermissibly complaining that the judgment was wrong,” they said.
The court also refused a request from the law firm to mark its disapproval of Ms Burke’s conduct by ordering costs on a “legal practitioner and client” basis, which covers all reasonable costs incurred, even those that were not absolutely necessary.
The judges noted they upheld the High Court’s decision to order Ms Burke to pay the bulk of the High Court costs on this basis.
The Court of Appeal’s disapproval of Ms Burke’s conduct is “clearly evident” from its main judgment so it is unnecessary to mark its disapproval through ordering for costs in this way, particularly when the legal practitioner and client costs for the High Court “are likely to be significantly more substantial”, they said.
