User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Blog Feeds

forward

Public Inquiry
Just another WordPress site

offsite link Oh my God, Sinn Fein must now be outlawed

offsite link Rabbitte and cronies begin to stampede? Anthony

offsite link Kelly’s bluff and bluster will not save his ‘legacy’ or his go... Anthony

offsite link Irish Water: The meltdown begins. Anthony

offsite link Gardai caught between serving the people and the State Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link MAIN SERVER BACK UP AGAIN VINEYARDSAKER:

offsite link THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO A NEW LOCATION VINEYARDSAKER:

offsite link Good news out of Russia - even the "non-system" opposition refuses to blame the Kremlin VINEYARDSAKER:

offsite link Nemtsov murder: Putin warned about exactly this type of "false flag" two years ago VINEYARDSAKER:

offsite link DPR PM Zakharchenko presser 27/02/15 Economical and political future of DPR VINEYARDSAKER:

The Saker >>

Human Rights in Ireland
www.humanrights.ie

offsite link End Direct Provision: #DirectProvision15 Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:16 | GuestPost

offsite link Guest Post: 20 years after Beijing: let?s take a few steps back. Fri Mar 20, 2015 08:13 | GuestPost

offsite link Socio-Economic Rights, the Constitution and the ECHR Act 2003: O?Donnell v South Dublin County Counc... Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:53 | Liam Thornton

offsite link Final Workshop in the Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments Project. Mon Mar 16, 2015 09:35 | admin

offsite link 20 Years after Beijing: Taking a few steps back? Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:10 | Aoife O'Donoghue

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Cedar Lounge
For lefties too stubborn to quit

offsite link Paying the price for centuries of contempt 14:17 Fri Mar 27, 2015 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link A Cedar Lounge Revolution Book Club? 12:14 Fri Mar 27, 2015 | WorldbyStorm

offsite link Blaney 1973 Fanad and Kerrykeel 09:24 Fri Mar 27, 2015 | irishelectionliterature

offsite link This Week At Irish Election Literature 06:15 Fri Mar 27, 2015 | irishelectionliterature

offsite link Progressive Film Club ? A reminder about Saturday?s films 21:42 Thu Mar 26, 2015 | WorldbyStorm

Cedar Lounge >>

Order for court transcript

category national | miscellaneous | other press author Sunday February 24, 2013 01:17author by JohnAB Report this post to the editors

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

PDF Document Stenographer Email correspondence 0.57 Mb
PDF Document Legal proceedings for return of money 2.25 Mb
PDF Document Examples of differences between 2 transcripts 0.97 Mb
PDF Document Copy of cheque for court transcript 0.24 Mb

© 2001-2015 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy