Life should be full of strangeness, like a rich painting
ALWAYS THE ARTISTS: WEEK THREE OF THE BANK INQUIRY 23:11 Thu Jan 22, 2015
FIANNA FÁIL AND THE BANK INQUIRY : SOME INITIAL OBSERVATIONS 21:04 Mon Jan 12, 2015
PETER NYBERG BANK INQUIRY EVIDENCE, 17 DECEMBER 2014 18:05 Sun Dec 28, 2014
For Some Vicious Mole of Nature: Making Sense of The Irish Bank Crisis 21:07 Fri Dec 26, 2014
THE DEEPER GAME BEHIND #IRISHWATER 10:26 Fri Dec 05, 2014
Dublin Opinion >>
Joined up thinking for the Irish Left
Always the Artists: Week Three of the Bank Inquiry Fri Jan 23, 2015 03:31 | Conor McCabe
If This Isn?t an Emergency, What is? Fri Jan 23, 2015 03:15 | Michael Taft
When Joe Brolly Met Georg Lukács Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:22 | Rónán Burtenshaw
Time for the Left to Act Together Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:10 | Eddie Conlon
The New Fiscal Enemy Within: The Elderly Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:54 | Michael Taft
Irish Left Review >>
Health, Gender-Based Violence and the Right to Reparations in Ireland. Sat Jan 24, 2015 16:06 | Máiréad Enright
Mental Disorder and Punishment in Criminal Law ? Seminar Wed Jan 21, 2015 14:22 | Yvonne Daly
Protection against Cross-Examination by the Accused in Sexual Offence Trials ? The Criminal Law (Sex... Wed Jan 21, 2015 06:30 | Sinead Ring
Update on the Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments Project. Fri Jan 16, 2015 09:00 | admin
Seminar 5th Feb 2015 (Trans)Gender Recognition in Germany: The Role of the German Courts Thu Jan 15, 2015 08:30 | Liam Thornton
Human Rights in Ireland >>
Order for court transcript
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.
Stenographer Email correspondence
Legal proceedings for return of money
Examples of differences between 2 transcripts
Copy of cheque for court transcript