Ammi Burke speaks out about the behaviour of Judge Marguerite Bolger 14-10-23

EXCLUSIVE: AMMI BURKE SPEAKS OUT ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF JUDGE MARGUERITE BOLGER AND THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FACTS OF HER CASE BY THE MEDIA

On 12 November 2019 Ammi Burke was dismissed from her position at Arthur Cox. The dismissal was on a ‘no-fault’ basis and Arthur Cox made it clear to Ammi Burke that she had done nothing wrong.
Ammi Burke took an unfair dismissal case to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in 2020. The case was dismissed by the Adjudication Officer Kevin Baneham after he failed to call key witnesses (HR Director Ruth Dalton and partner Kevin Lynch) and refused to order the disclosure of critical email evidence.
Burke challenged this decision in the High Court in a case which was heard by Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger. In comments at a preliminary hearing Judge Bolger said that Burke’s case was “not some sort of public interest case”. This statement was manifestly untrue as the issues raised by Burke’s case, most notably whether hearings at the WRC are adversarial or inquisitorial in nature, have a bearing on all unfair dismissal cases brought to the WRC.
On the basis of these comments, which Judge Bolger refused to retract, Burke made an application for Judge Bolger to recuse herself from hearing the case. In her recusal application Burke also raised the fact of the close relationship which exists between Bolger and Mr Peter Ward SC who represented Arthur Cox (Bolger and Ward are closely acquainted for many years, with both being cofounders and former chairpersons of the Employment Bar Association). It was also raised in court that when Arthur Cox suggested mediation to Ammi Burke before she took her case to the WRC, the top choice by Arthur Cox for mediator was none other than Marguerite Bolger. In addition to this, prior to becoming a judge, Marguerite Bolger had stated that proceedings at the WRC “must be adversarial”, indicating a prejudged mind on the core issue. In support of this assertion Marguerite Bolger had misrepresented a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, ascribing to that Court words which it had never in fact uttered.
Bolger refused to recuse herself and the case had to proceed. On the second day of the trial while the WRC were making submissions to the court, Judge Bolger announced that she had printed copies of a case which were then distributed to the parties. The case was favourable to the WRC and Arthur Cox. This was an unprecedented development, as Judge Bolger was ‘descending into the arena’ and showing favour to one side over another. When Ammi Burke objected to the Judge’s actions, Judge Bolger made an order that she would take back the copies of the case. At this point Peter Ward SC jumped to his feet and said “we are refusing to give back this case”, openly defying the Judge’s order. Judge Bolger capitulated to Peter Ward’s wishes and did not take the case back. The Judge then said she was minded to adjourn the hearing, but Peter Ward rose and demanded that she dismiss the proceedings outright. The Judge again deferred to his wishes and dismissed the case.
At a subsequent costs hearing it was revealed that a private arrangement existed between Arthur Cox and the WRC to provide a private stenographer’s transcript to the Judge without the knowledge or consent of Ammi Burke. When Ammi Burke raised this in court Peter Ward SC stated that Arthur Cox had written to her regarding the transcript. This was entirely false. The hearing was adjourned. In the intervening period Ammi Burke wrote to solicitors for Arthur Cox asking them to provide her with the communication referred to by Peter Ward SC. No such communication was provided because none exists. At the final costs hearing, when Ammi Burke raised this with the Judge, Judge Bolger announced that Peter Ward SC had not lied to the court despite the facts showing clearly that indeed he had. She prevented Ammi Burke from making submissions on that matter and said she could go to the Court of Appeal if she wished.
Throughout this case the media have failed to do their duty. They have not fulfilled their responsibility to provide the public with the facts of this case. A case in point is an article by Ellen O’Riordan in the Irish Times last week where she stated that Ammi Burke had claimed lies were told, but then omitted the details of what those lies were. ‘Reporting’ such as this implies that Ammi Burke is unreasonable. By deliberately omitting basic facts and details the media are ensuring that the public receive an utterly distorted account of events. Instead of printing the truth, they uplift the judges, the elites, the big law firms – while the good names of ordinary citizens are dragged into the dirt.
The truth will be heard and will prevail. Please share this video widely.