Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Promoting Human Rights in IrelandHuman Rights in Ireland >>
Migration Adds 707,000 People to the Population of England and Wales in Just a YEAR ? The Second Lar... Wed Jul 30, 2025 19:00 | Richard Eldred 707,000 people have been added to the population of England and Wales in just one year ? 98% of them due to net migration ? making it the second-biggest rise in more than 75 years.
The post Migration Adds 707,000 People to the Population of England and Wales in Just a YEAR ? The Second Largest Jump Since 1945 appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Masking Our Schoolchildren Was Child Abuse ? A Rare Chance to Stop It Returning Wed Jul 30, 2025 17:00 | Dr Gary Sidley Thanks to the Declaration of Dumfries, parents now have a real shot at suing councils that unlawfully forced masks on their children ? and at making sure this form of child abuse never happens again, says Gary Sidley.
The post Masking Our Schoolchildren Was Child Abuse ? A Rare Chance to Stop It Returning appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Rotherham Police Sexually Abused Us Too, Say Five Grooming Victims Wed Jul 30, 2025 15:00 | Richard Eldred Just when you think the rape gang scandal can't get worse, five Rotherham victims say police officers abused them too ? claims currently being investigated by South Yorkshire Police itself, sparking fears of a whitewash.
The post Rotherham Police Sexually Abused Us Too, Say Five Grooming Victims appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
The Online Safety Act is a Censor?s Charter Wed Jul 30, 2025 13:00 | Andrew Doyle We were assured by Conservative and Labour politicians that the Online Safety Act was designed to protect children. In the last few days, its real, more sinister purpose has become, writes Andrew Doyle.
The post The Online Safety Act is a Censor?s Charter appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Political Censors Have Cynically Hijacked Vital Child Protections Wed Jul 30, 2025 11:00 | Toby Young Andrew Orlowski in the Telegraph says the Online Safety Act has less to do with protecting children than suppressing populist political sentiment.
The post Political Censors Have Cynically Hijacked Vital Child Protections appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Will intergovernmental institutions withstand the end of the "American Empire"?,... Sat Apr 05, 2025 07:15 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?127 Sat Apr 05, 2025 06:38 | en
Disintegration of Western democracy begins in France Sat Apr 05, 2025 06:00 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?126 Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:39 | en
The International Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism by Amichai Chikli and Na... Fri Mar 28, 2025 11:31 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Order for court transcript
national |
miscellaneous |
other press
Sunday February 24, 2013 01:17 by JohnAB

High Court Judge makes order for transcript of case he presided over. Plaintiff forwards a substantial sum of money to Stenographer Company for court transcript. Plaintiff sues Stenographer Company for return of money. Stenographer Company settles case and returns all monies. The Defendants in a personal injury case brought a motion before the High Court to have the case dismissed for want of prosecution. The motion was heard before a Judge of the High Court. The Plaintiff's argument was that the case was heard during the course of taintiff's RTA case 4 years previously. The Judge put off the motion for a later date. When the motion came before the same Judge again the Plaintiff again argued the same point. The Judge said he could not get involved in this and put the motion before the High Court Judge that heard the RTA case.
When the motion came before the RTA Judge the plaintiff again argued to the Judge that he heard evidence of the personal injury case during the course of his RTA case. With the view of settling the argument the Judge ordered the transcript of the RTA case, which he presided over, to be got.
The plaintiff made contact with the Stenographer company who recorded the RTA case about the transcipt and the costs. The Stenographer company said the cost of the transcript would be at 12euro/page an estimated 6,240euros. The Palintiff forwarded this money to the Stenographers and they began work on producing the transcript. The Plaintiff also paid 45euros for a copy bringing the money paid at 6,285euros.
After a couple of weeks through email correspondence between the Plaintiff and the Stenographer's the Plaintiff was concerned that there was difficulties with the production of the transcript. The Plaintiff then recieved an email from the Stenographers that the transcript was completed and it was attached by PDF. What the Stenographers said in the email concerned the Plaintiff. It read "the transcipt was old, the stenographer who took the case was no longer with them and the audio was extremely bad they did the best they could".
The Plaintiff sought the return of his money. They refused and instead one of the Directors of the company wrote back that he had taken on the responsibility of the transcript himself and guaranteed its accuracy. He forwarded it to the Plainitff by PDF email attachment. The Plaintiff now had two transcripts of the same case. There was very obvious discrepancies between the two transcipts. The Director further said by email that he would be in the court the day the Plaintiff was before the Judge and would give him the transcript in bound copy form.
When the matter came before the Judge,the Plaintiff was unwell to make the 2 hour journey to the court and so was represented in court by his mother and brother. A letter written by the Plaintiff was handed up to the Judge. it read that he could not accept the transcript from the Stenographers. Also attached was the email from the Stenographers that they had difficulties with the transcript. The Judge ignored this and asked the room if the transcript was in the court. The Director for the Stenographer company stood up and replied that it was. The Judge turned to the Plaintiff's mother and asked her to accept the transcript on behalf of her son. She replied that she could not and referred the Judge to the letter handed up to him. The Judge ignored the woman's response and again asked her to take the transcript on behalf of her son. She again refused highlighting to the Judge the correspondence from the Stenographers. The High Court Judge immediately made an order for the transcript to be sent by registered post to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs mother and brother left the courtroom.
The following day the Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Stenographers that he would be issuing court proceedings against them within 14 days if they did not return his money. The Stenographers responded that they would not and the transcript was "accurate in content and detail". They also highlighted they had a High Court order to deliver it.
In the meantime the transcript arrived at the Plaintiffs home by registered post by which the Plaintiff refused to sign for it and it was returned. It arrived a second time by which it was again refused and it was returned. 2,037euros was returned as an over estimation of the production of the transcript.
The Plaintiff, as a lay litigant, issued District court proceedings against the Stenographer company for the return of the remainder on the money of 4,248euros.
The Plaintiff wrote to the President of the High Court about the behaviour of the High Court Judge and the production of a High Court Transcript. The President put the matter before the Judge who told the Plaintiff he was stepping aside from the motion before him.
About 2 weeks before the Court case against the Stenographer company was to be heard the Plaintiff wrote to the Stenographers requesting a voluntarily discovery of the audio tape of the RTA case to be produced in court and also to bring the equipment to play the audio.
The Stenographer company responded by offering a return of the money. The Plaintiff agreed and the money was returned along with expenses the Plaintiff had paid for issuing the court case and travel expenses to the court.
I have uploaded files related to this story.
Contact details can be provided on request.
Regards.
JohnAB
Stenographer Email correspondence
0.57 Mb
Legal proceedings for return of money
2.25 Mb
Examples of differences between 2 transcripts
0.97 Mb
Copy of cheque for court transcript
0.24 Mb
|