Making submissions on Wednesday as part of her High Court challenge to the WRC’s rejection of her complaint, Ms Burke said the WRC hearing was held up and “taxpayers’ money is spent while an adjudicating officer is sitting there”.She accused Mr Baneham of “capitulating” to a “direction” by Arthur Cox’s senior counsel, Peter Ward, for the hearing to be conducted in an adversarial manner, rather than under an inquisitorial procedure that she contends should have been followed.
On a number of occasions during the hearing, Ms Justice Bolger told Ms Burke that she has a duty to behave appropriately in court. The judge also asked Ms Burke not to point her finger at her while making submissions, as it was “quite distracting”.Earlier, Ms Justice Bolger delivered a 16-page judgment explaining why she was refusing to recuse herself from hearing the case.
Ms Justice Bolger said the fact she wrote an article in 2015, while she was a practising barrister, that touched on the adversarial versus inquisitorial nature of the WRC did not “decide” the issues raised in this case, as was alleged by Ms Burke. Arthur Cox’s solicitor, Donal Spring of Daniel Spring & Co, said in a sworn statement that Ms Justice Bolger was never contacted about potentially mediating the claim.
After Ms Justice Bolger concluded her ruling on Wednesday morning, Ms Burke immediately objected to being “forced” to proceed with her case before the judge.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: businessposthq - 🏆 8. / 71 Read more »
Source: businessposthq - 🏆 8. / 71 Read more »
Source: businessposthq - 🏆 8. / 71 Read more »
Source: IrishTimes - 🏆 3. / 98 Read more »
Source: NewstalkFM - 🏆 19. / 55 Read more »