Syriza and Israel: Syrizaâ€™s response Thu Aug 20, 2015 18:10 | yeksmesh
What does a Corbyn victory mean? Tue Aug 18, 2015 00:32 | Sami El-Sayed
SYRIZA: Was capitulation inevitable? Fri Jul 17, 2015 14:14 | Sami El-Sayed
The four contradictions of liberalism Fri Jul 17, 2015 13:52 | yeksmesh
Between Ideology and Public Discourse Tue Jul 14, 2015 15:07 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason
Spirit of Contradiction >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Politicians feeding off the victims of corruption
Malaysia/Ireland: Different responses to corruption Anthony
Atheism; the most evil ideology ever, ever? Anthony
Irish Times: Living on planet Irish Water Anthony
Shock news: Sinn Fein/IRA admits Twin Towers attack Anthony
Public Inquiry >>
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO A NEW LOCATION VINEYARDSAKER:
Good news out of Russia - even the "non-system" opposition refuses to blame the Kremlin VINEYARDSAKER:
Nemtsov murder: Putin warned about exactly this type of "false flag" two years ago VINEYARDSAKER:
DPR PM Zakharchenko presser 27/02/15 Economical and political future of DPR VINEYARDSAKER:
Breaking news: FALSE FLAG IN MOSCOW! VINEYARDSAKER:
The Saker >>
UCC CCJHR: Helena Kennedy, ?Securing Justice in an Unjust World? 10 Sept 2015 Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:34 | admin
Europe?s Shared Burden: Collective Responsibility for Migrants at Sea, UCD 9th-10th Oct 2015 Wed Aug 19, 2015 14:20 | admin
Just Published: The ECHR Act 2003 and EUCFR in Irish Courts 2003-2014 Tue Aug 04, 2015 16:29 | Liam Thornton
Abortion Law in Northern Ireland ? Change at Last? Wed Jul 29, 2015 08:05 | GuestPost
Depoliticising Policing at MacGill Summer School Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:59 | Vicky Conway
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