Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

McMurphy

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's a bit presumptuous. How do you know she witnessed it, even if she was there? She could have been in the jacks/looking the other way etc. How do you know she advised her to lie about it?

You can't do 'guilt by association' just because Madigan was there.

The CCTV footage would make for spectacular viewing.

JeffKenna

BattleCorp wrote: »

That's a bit presumptuous. How do you know she witnessed it, even if she was there? She could have been in the jacks/looking the other way etc. How do you know she advised her to lie about it?

You can't do 'guilt by association' just because Madigan was there.

Because Maria already stated that both of her friends were there at the time of the incident. She also said she got advise from her solicitors on what to say in the affidavit...

Someone should ask Madigan straight out was she there. If she says No I’d believe her as she knows there is cctv of that night.

If she dodges the question, there’s your answer.

Stop moaning ffs

I think Madigans squirming and refusing to answer if she advised then or after the fact tells its own tale.

Stop moaning ffs

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Someone should ask Madigan straight out was she there. If she says No I’d believe her as she knows there is cctv of that night.

If she dodges the question, there’s your answer.

She was asked yesterday by a few reporters but refused to answer.
Think she previously said she couldn’t answer cos of client privacy

ArrBee

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Someone should ask Madigan straight out was she there. If she says No I’d believe her as she knows there is cctv of that night.

If she dodges the question, there’s your answer.

Aparently this has been done.
She dodged the question.

BattleCorp

banie01 wrote: »

If Madigan was present during the "accident" and advised Bailey she had a winnable case...

Like I said, I'm not trying to defend Bailey or Madigan here but Madigan is a solicitor, that's what solicitors do - they advise. And maybe it was a winnable case.

It is surely obvious that she would have known both the circumstances of the accident, and as they were socialising together and work together, the actual impact of any injury and resulting limitations on Ms Bailey, would have been 1st hand knowledge to Ms Madigan and distinctly at odds with the affidavit submitted as part of the claim.

If the Affidavit contained inaccuracies, then that's the fault of Bailey as she would be the person signing the Affidavit. All a solicitor can do is go on the advices of their client.

Madigan might not know the full extent of any injuries or how her client/friend is suffering. They were work colleagues, they weren't living together 24/7.

All a solicitor can go on is what their client tells them.

Ms Bailey has claimed the claim was made reliant upon legal advice.
If that legal advice was offered by a current minister who was present at the scene.
It leads to serious and valid concerns regarding credibility and trustworthiness.
It's bad enough that her firm took the instruction IMO with no regard for the actual optics of the situation.

And that legal advice may have been correct. The only way we would have known if the legal advice was correct or not would have been if the case made it into court and a Judge made a ruling.

My personal belief is that Bailey should be fcuked out the door so fast that she sh1ts herself but I wouldn't agree with blaming Madigan from taking instructions from her client.

dublin99

" I took legal advice ...... and I was told I had a clear cut case."

Well, admittedly only heard third or fourth hand through the grapevine, but words on the street is that the barrister who was instructed (by Madigans?) to draft the pleadings had apparently advised that it was not a good case at all. (Any sane person, with or without legal training, can see that!) If that had been the case, did MB get this "clear cut case" advice from Madigans?

Maybe MB can sue her Solicitors who obviously had given her advice that is in contrary to counsel's advice!

MeMen2_MoRi_

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You might be giddy, but the image in your mind is a fiction. And this is the problem here with fact and fabrication being freely mixed - she was NOT drunk. She had one glass of wine earlier, and had not drunk anything in The Dean. But dont let that get in the way of a good laugh if you dont care about being fair.

Fact or fabrication??

She was NOT drunk? Really, when did this become a fact?

She had one glass earlier and nothing consumed in the Dean? Really? when did this become a fact?

No JUDGE ADJUDICATED on this case. Fact.

But hey, nobody gives a sh!te if she was drunk or not, she was still stupid enough (not drunk) to have both hands off of the swing and wants to take zero personal responsibility for this idiocy.

banie01

BattleCorp wrote: »

My personal belief is that Bailey should be fcuked out the door so fast that she sh1ts herself but I wouldn't agree with blaming Madigan from taking instructions from her client.

If Madigan was present, was witness to the incident and if Madigan or indeed her firm are the source of the advice initially proffered to Bailey.

She has put herself in a precarious professional position by offering to advise a client on an action where she could quite legitimately be called as a witness.

Aside from jumping on any compo culture issue.
If Madigan was present, and Madigan's firm is representing the plaintiff.
It would lead to quite an interesting circumstance should Madigan have been called as a witness for the defence.
It goes some way IMO to addressing Madigan's evasion of the question when it was asked of her.

BattleCorp

dublin99 wrote: »

" I took legal advice ...... and I was told I had a clear cut case."

Well, admittedly only heard third or fourth hand through the grapevine, but words on the street is that the barrister who was instructed (by Madigans?) to draft the pleadings had apparently advised that it was not a good case at all. (Any sane person, with or without legal training, can see that!) If that had been the case, did MB get this "clear cut case" advice from Madigans?

Maybe MB can sue her Solicitors who obviously had given her advice that is in contrary to counsel's advice!

In my experience (unfortunately a lot), solicitors rarely tell their clients that they have a 'clear cut case'. Usually solicitors try to manage their client's expectations because it's much better to under-promise and over-deliver.

BattleCorp

banie01 wrote: »

If Madigan was present, was witness to the incident and if Madigan or indeed her firm are the source of the advice initially proffered to Bailey.

She has put herself in a precarious professional position by offering to advise a client on an action where she could quite legitimately be called as a witness.

Aside from jumping on any compo culture issue.
If Madigan was present, and Madigan's firm is representing the plaintiff.
It would lead to quite an interesting circumstance should Madigan have been called as a witness for the defence.
It goes some way IMO to addressing Madigan's evasion of the question when it was asked of her.

I agree, there is the possibility of a conflict of interest.

But there are a lot of ifs. We don't know if Madigan witnessed the incident. And we'll probably never know unless the CCTV is leaked.

Deebles McBeebles

BattleCorp wrote: »

And we'll probably never know unless the CCTV is leaked.

Fingers crossed. It would go viral around the world with the ridiculousness of the story behind it.

BattleCorp

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Fingers crossed. It would go viral around the world with the ridiculousness of the story behind it.

To be honest, I'd pay a tenner to see that CCTV.

Millionaire only not

Omg will they just get on with firing her I’m sick of the suspense. We can move in to the onslaught of the Madigan one then , only so much we can talk about the Bailey one although in fairness she’s easy on the eye . Only for Leo is left hand drive she might have escaped with bit of make up

BattleCorp

Millionaire only not wrote: »

Omg will they just get on with firing her I’m sick of the suspense. We can move in to the onslaught of the Madigan one then , only so much we can talk about the Bailey one although in fairness she’s easy on the eye . Only for Leo is left hand drive she might have escaped with bit of make up

They can't fire her. She's broken no laws. She can be thrown out of the Fine Gael party but she can't be fired from being a TD.

ChikiChiki

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Waiting on the edge of our seats for the outcome of this meeting

Will she jump / fall on her sword or will Leo give her the push???
And who will she sue afterwards?


Ps does anyone know if the story about her suing Aer Lingus for €160k is actually true?

She is definitely the sort that won't go easy. If she has anything against other ministers I'd say she would be willing to use it.

banie01

BattleCorp wrote: »

I agree, there is the possibility of a conflict of interest.

But there are a lot of ifs. We don't know if Madigan witnessed the incident. And we'll probably never know unless the CCTV is leaked.

That's why I qualified my opinion with an "if".
The stance taken by Ms Madigan leaves a lot of the issue open to interpretation and people will generally look towards saying nothing as the path of least damage.
The guesses at the moment are shaped by her evasion of the question and reliance on an Solicitor/Client privilege.
When/what was the formation of that stated relationship?


Even without Ms Madigan being the source of the advice.
The choice of Madigan's LLP to not advise their Client to seek alternative representation should the possibility of one of the firm's principals being called as a witness be likely.
IMO would raise serious competency concerns were I a client and those the circumstances.
Chinese walls aren't going to help avoid a taint in such a situation

everlast75

What are the grounds for throwing her out of the party?

And when I say grounds, on what proven facts?

I suspect, as a lot here do, that she was chancing her arm, that she may get some compensation - say 50/50, but that's very different to a fraudulent claim.

cj maxx

BattleCorp wrote: »

To be honest, I'd pay a tenner to see that CCTV.

We could make a night of it you and me .
Beers, wine and off course the swing!!

LollipopJimmy

I'm waiting for the CCTV to turn up on an episode of Destination ****ed over on Ozzy Man Reviews

Suckit

I'd say there are a lot of people doing everything they can to stop that cctv being released. Surely they would have received confirmation in writing that the case has been dropped by now.

Sardonicat

everlast75 wrote: »

What are the grounds for throwing her out of the party?

And when I say grounds, on what proven facts?

I suspect, as a lot here do, that she was chancing her arm, that she may get some compensation - say 50/50, but that's very different to a fraudulent claim.

She swore an affidavit that stated she could not run at all for 3 months.
This was a blatant lie. She ran 10k 3 weeks after the "accident"
She's a crook.

InTheShadows

I don't understand why the CCTV can't be released? The case is dropped so no legal issues over making it public.

everlast75

Sardonicat wrote: »

She swore an affidavit that stated she could not run at all for 3 months.
This was a blatant lie. She ran 10k 3 weeks after the "accident"
She's a crook.

Pleadings can be changed, mistakes can be made. Not enough to throw her out.

What else?

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

What are the grounds for throwing her out of the party?

And when I say grounds, on what proven facts?

I suspect, as a lot here do, that she was chancing her arm, that she may get some compensation - say 50/50, but that's very different to a fraudulent claim.

If the indo hadn’t released the mentioning in court and Maria Bailey had no Facebook page showing the gig and 10k, do you think she would have kept up the premise of not being able to run for 3 months and having trouble sitting or standing?

I think she would have left those lies in her affidavit. I mean, on SOR she said she has (not did) instruct her legal team to amend that stuff. She says that after 3 years it’s easy to get things wrong. BUT she has ran that race since. Is it on the same time every year?

Total fraud if she could have had the opportunity.

Snow Garden

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Have you information or evidence to the contrary ? I dont think The Dean makes any claim that it is supervised.

There really is no point replying to you. So I am just going to repeat my entire post.

Yeah yeah she claimed she wasn't able to run for 3 months either.

She claimed to have had trouble moving and sitting after the 'accident' and yet went to a festival within a week.

She sued for medical costs plus personal injury, loss, damage and inconvenience, potentially netting up to €60,000.

The claim omitted mention of her holding bottles while on the swing.

She complained that the swing was 'unsupervised'.

She declined to explain why the hotel was at fault. “I’m not a legal person.”

She is not trustworthy. In fact she is a liar

jon1981

I bet you she loses a couple of chair positions and then left to public to decide her faith in the next general election.

McMurphy

In another thread, a serial FG spinner is insisting that the hotel would get into serious legal difficulties if the CCTV makes its way into the public domain due to GDRP.

I'm no lawyer on the whole GDRP balloxology, but this happened in 2015, 3 years previous to its (GDRP) introduction.

You'd wonder if the hotel forwarded the footage to anyone, either knowingly or unknowingly?

I mean, security possibly had a laugh about it, hotel staff members, insurers/prosecution/defence etc etc.

Lord knows how many people have access to it at this stage, fingers crossed it's leaked on Twitter.

Ash.J.Williams

Snow Garden wrote: »

Yeah yeah she claimed she wasn't able to run for 3 months either.

She claimed to have had trouble moving and sitting after the 'accident' and yet went to a festival within a week.

She sued for medical costs plus personal injury, loss, damage and inconvenience, potentially netting up to €60,000.

The claim omitted mention of her holding bottles while on the swing.

She complained that the swing was 'unsupervised'.

She declined to explain why the hotel was at fault. “I’m not a legal person.”

She is not trustworthy. In fact she is a liar.

I'd hazard a guess that all the above was Madigans input