Enoch Burke will have to pay the legal costs of his failed defamation action over an article in the Sunday Independent, the High Court has ruled.
Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy, in a written judgment on the costs issue published on Thursday, made an order that Mr Burke pay the costs of Mediahuis Ireland Ltd, publishers of the Sunday Independent. This is to include reserved costs and the costs of the court dealing with written submissions on costs, he said.
The principal costs relate to the four days it took to hear the case in May.
The case related to the jailing of Mr Burke, an Evangelical Christian, over his refusal to obey court orders to stay away from Wilson's Hospital School in Multyfarnham, Co Westmeath, where he had been employed as a teacher of history and German.
He had earlier come into conflict with school management over his refusal, in accordance with his Christian beliefs, to address a transgender student by a new name and use the “they/them” pronouns.
He was initially suspended and then sacked in January of last year but is appealing his dismissal.
He spent more than 400 days in prison over his refusal to stay away from the school before he was released at the end of last month without having purged his contempt and as the school holidays were underway.
He was warned, however, if he returns to the school, he will also return to prison.
During his initial period in prison, the Sunday Independent ran a story on October 9th, 2022.
The article, citing unnamed sources, said he had been moved to a new cell in Mountjoy Prison for his own safety, as he might have “got a beating” after “annoying other prisoners” and “repeatedly expressing his outspoken views and beliefs”.
Mr Burke sued, claiming the article damaged his reputation. The defendants denied his reputation was injured in the eyes of reasonable members of society but acknowledged the article contained “minor” errors.
A correction was published in January 2023 stating that he had been moved from his cell for “operational reasons only and not for the reasons stated in the article”.
Dismissing his case against Mediahuis on June 13th last, Mr Justice Mulcahy found that words used in the article, in their ordinary and natural meaning, were incapable of injuring his reputation.
The judge also said his provisional view was that the defendants should be awarded costs, but he said he would afford Mr Burke an opportunity to contend for a different form of order.
Mr Burke delivered written submissions in which he argued, among other things, that it would be “an affront to justice” to impose a costs order. He contended that the court should make no order as to costs.
Mediahuis argued the appropriate order was the one indicated by the judge in his judgment.
The judge, having considered the submissions on behalf of both parties, said that in all the circumstances, Mr Burke had not identified anything which would justify a departure from the default position that the defendants, who were entirely successful in their defence of the proceedings, were entitled to an award of costs.
