For lefties too stubborn to quit
?What you had maybe meant to keep: Irish political ephemera? appearing in New Ross 17:54 Tue Sep 02, 2014 | WorldbyStorm
Ah, bless the elites who know so much more than you or I. 17:41 Tue Sep 02, 2014 | WorldbyStorm
Interview with Peter McVerry 17:09 Tue Sep 02, 2014 | WorldbyStorm
And over at the SBP? 12:09 Tue Sep 02, 2014 | WorldbyStorm
Commemoration Wars ? and what of Unionism? 05:11 Tue Sep 02, 2014 | WorldbyStorm
Cedar Lounge >>
Life should be full of strangeness, like a rich painting
I SEE THE CLICHÉ CHICKENS ARE BACK AGAIN TED 10:02 Sat Aug 30, 2014
IRELAND?S TAX HAVEN INDUSTRY 22:01 Tue Aug 05, 2014
IPA Summer School - Social Justice, Poverty and Ireland - 28 July 2014 11:56 Mon Jul 28, 2014
Feminist Economics - Cuts are a Feminist Issue 08:21 Wed Jun 18, 2014
Feminist Economics - Care and Social Reproduction 16:11 Fri Jun 13, 2014
Dublin Opinion >>
Joined up thinking for the Irish Left
From Alpha 2 Omega Podcast #53: What?s Next? Part II Mon Sep 01, 2014 16:11 | Tom O'Brien
After the Gaza Massacre and After the Marches, What Do We Do? Thu Aug 28, 2014 16:10 | David Landy
Two London Exhibitions: Two Ways of Seeing Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:07 | Seán Sheehan
Connelly Youth Movement Talk: Latin America Today, Saturday 14:00, Connolly Book... Thu Aug 28, 2014 08:39 | Irish Left Review
Dismal Job Numbers Expose Government Spin Wed Aug 27, 2014 13:04 | Michael Taft
Irish Left Review >>
Two Funded Doctoral Scholarships Offered by the School of Law at NUI Galway: Human Rights and Consti... Tue Sep 02, 2014 15:17 | Charles O'Mahony
Win Lin v Governor of Cloverhill Prison. Mon Sep 01, 2014 15:40 | GuestPost
DCU School of Law and Government Inaugural Conference: ?Judges, Politics and the Irish Constitution.... Mon Sep 01, 2014 09:27 | Sinead Ring
Presumption of Guilt: Islamic State and UK Criminal Law Fri Aug 29, 2014 19:15 | Colin Murray
Time for Our Referendum Sat Aug 23, 2014 13:57 | 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