Enoch Burke was found to be in contempt of court for repeatedly breaching a High Court restraining order, but was granted temporary release to prepare his legal case.

The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant repeatedly breached a High Court order restraining him from entering school property. The school argued that the Defendant’s continued presence on the premises amounted to trespass and contempt of court, undermining the authority of the court and disrupting the school’s operations. It was submitted that previous court orders had been clear, lawful, and binding, and that the Defendant had knowingly disregarded them despite warnings of the consequences. The Plaintiff relied on sworn affidavits from the school principal and solicitor, asserting that the Defendant’s conduct demonstrated persistent defiance of judicial authority. The school further argued that committal was necessary to protect its staff and students and to uphold the rule of law. It maintained that the Defendant’s conduct was not accidental or misunderstood but formed part of a pattern of deliberate non-compliance, justifying the renewed application for attachment and committal.

The Defendant maintained that he had substantive legal grievances arising from the disciplinary process and argued that the proceedings before the Disciplinary Appeal Panel raised serious issues of fairness and legality. He contended that he had initiated fresh High Court proceedings seeking injunctive relief and that these proceedings justified a reconsideration of his position. The Defendant asserted that he was acting in pursuit of legal rights rather than in contempt of court and argued that the disciplinary process was flawed. He further maintained that his imprisonment impeded his ability to prepare complex constitutional and employment-law arguments, particularly as he was acting without legal representation. The Defendant submitted that his release was necessary to vindicate his right to fair procedures and to allow him adequate opportunity to present his case. He therefore resisted the Plaintiff’s application for committal, characterising it as disproportionate in light of the ongoing legal disputes.

The Judge found that the Defendant had persistently breached a lawful High Court order and that such conduct amounted to contempt of court. However, the Court concluded that the interests of justice required the Defendant’s temporary release from imprisonment to allow him to prepare his legal case effectively. The Court emphasised that the Defendant was unrepresented, lacked legal expertise, and faced complex constitutional, contractual, and employment-law issues. It held that continued imprisonment would place him at a significant disadvantage and undermine the fairness of the proceedings. At the same time, the Court reaffirmed that the original restraining order remained in force and warned that any further breach would result in recommittal. The Court therefore balanced the need to uphold judicial authority with the Defendant’s right to fair procedures, concluding that temporary release was justified but conditional upon strict compliance with existing court orders.

Employers should:         

• Ensure that disciplinary processes are procedurally fair, transparent, and consistent with contractual and statutory obligations. Decisions should be documented carefully, and employees should be given clear notice of allegations, an opportunity to respond, and access to appeal mechanisms. Where disputes escalate to litigation, employers must strictly comply with court orders and ensure that internal processes align with legal requirements and principles of natural justice.
   
  
• Recognise that protracted disputes can generate significant legal, reputational, and operational risks. Early engagement, clear communication, and proportionate responses to conflict are important. Where an employee acts in defiance of lawful orders, employers should seek timely legal advice and rely on formal enforcement mechanisms rather than informal measures.
   
  
• Finally, organisations should maintain governance structures for handling sensitive disciplinary matters. This includes training decision-makers, ensuring independence in appeal panels, and anticipating potential constitutional or employment-law challenges.        
  

The full case can be found here.