Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

cj maxx · 30-05-2019 1:05pm

iamwhoiam wrote: »

https://www.dublinlive.ie/whats-on/food-drink-news/maria-bailey-swing-dublin-pub-16351758

Sounds very like white russian

gormdubhgorm · 30-05-2019 1:05pm

Snow Garden wrote: »

This case is fast becoming one of the biggest political stories over the last 10 years. It really is an Irish classic. I truly believe there are more revelations to follow.

It could be a short film.

Saorise Ronan as Maria Bailey

Baz Ashmawy as Leo Varadkar

John Connors as a solicitor from Madigan's

ChikiChiki · 30-05-2019 1:05pm

InTheShadows wrote: »

I'm beginning to think Madigan is knee deep in this also. Varadkar should have kicked Bailey out and made a statement yesterday now this could snowball out of his PR teams hands. As they say it's the little things that trip you up.

And there was word Kate O'Connell may have been present.

30-05-2019 1:08pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I did not realise Alan Shatter wrote a book about his 'political assassination'

Frenzy and Betrayal: The Anatomy of a Political Assassination

https://irishacademicpress.ie/product/frenzy-and-betrayal-the-anatomy-of-a-political-assassination/

'Compelling and sardonic, Frenzy and Betrayal is the deeply disturbing story of how a dedicated, truthful and progressive Irish cabinet minister was falsely accused of wrongdoing and unjustly hounded from office in twenty-first-century Ireland, and his traumatic five-year battle for vindication and the truth.'

I am just wondering can he give Maria Bailey any advice on writing a book?
She might as well start now...

What title would it be?

WKD swings?

Jaysus 45 chapters. I'd say it's a right slog to wade through

seamus · 30-05-2019 1:08pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Hasn't Madigan basically admitted that she was Bailey's lawyer ?

If she's not your client, what confidentiality would you be breaking?

Why couldn't she just deny it if she's not involved?

Genuinely - because she may have been her solicitor at one stage but not for this. Or if Madigan is a partner in her husband's firm, then she is technically Bailey's solicitor whether or not she personally advised her.

So if she was to reveal whether she did or didn't, she potentially breaching her obligations.

gormdubhgorm · 30-05-2019 1:08pm

cjmc wrote: »

Sounds very like white russian

That's gas contains - Vodka, Tia Maria, Baileys

suicide_circus · 30-05-2019 1:10pm

InTheShadows wrote: »

Wouldn't it be nice just the once to hear a politician come out and admit they where in the wrong and resign from their position. These feckers are meant to lead from the front as an example. Personal responsibility is non existent to them.

their chief concern is to hang on to power at all costs. Integrity and the national interest are foreign concepts.

The Rape of Lucretia · 30-05-2019 1:15pm

Shefwedfan wrote: »

All to cover up the main facts which are
1. She lied
2. She lied to cover up the lies
3. She forgot the original lies and then lied some more to cover up those
4. Another FG politician gave bad legal advice....
5. Leo will never make a decision in his life
6. FG as standard are as crooked as every and are trying to cover this up

To be fair, that's all at best conjecture, or at worst, incorrect, unjust, blind party prejudice, and politically childish.

McMurphy · 30-05-2019 1:15pm

seamus wrote: »

Genuinely - because she may have been her solicitor at one stage but not for this. Or if Madigan is a partner in her husband's firm, then she is technically Bailey's solicitor whether or not she personally advised her.

So if she was to reveal whether she did or didn't, she potentially breaching her obligations.

I thought it was the brothers firm, that she left two years ago?

Also, what's to stop Bailey exonerating Madigan, assuming she's not had any involvement in the case?

We already know Madigans are the firm involved, I just don't know why Maria Bailey wouldn't just say it was Madigans, but my solicitor isn't/wasn't Josepha.

mikemac2 · 30-05-2019 1:21pm

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Or the guy in Australia who sued himself and won. He threw a boomerang and it came back and hit him. He sued himself for negligence and injury and won. His insurance company had to give him a huge payout. Clever of him.

Clever story. Snopes says it is false though

The Rape of Lucretia · 30-05-2019 1:22pm

Suckit wrote: »

.
Hopefully Madigan is hung with her.

With many facts not in the public domain, how can you possibly wish something like that?

With all the clamour about wanting clean politicians and justice, jumping to such conclusions suggest the popular views on summary justice are far more off piste than that of any politician.

VinLieger · 30-05-2019 1:23pm

Suckit wrote: »

Shatter was on SOR this morning and said that as a solicitor he would have asked his client if they understood what they were suing for, what the outcome may be and to go over ever little detail etc.
He said that he would have serious questions for whatever part member or lawyer gave her legal advice.

Hopefully Madigan is hung with her.

Shatter has a serious axe to grind in this case as Josepha Madigan nabbed a seat ahead of him in the new constituency created in the last election.

TBH id always be looking for the agenda behind anything Shatter utters, hes an arrogant so and so who much like Bailey always plays the victim.

The Rape of Lucretia · 30-05-2019 1:26pm

mikemac2 wrote: »

Clever story. Snopes says it is false though

Not so easy to do either - getting a boomerang to come back is no cinch.
My boomerang won't come back.
I've waved the thing all over the place. Practiced till I was black in the face.

cj maxx · 30-05-2019 1:26pm

ChikiChiki wrote: »

And there was word Kate O'Connell may have been present.

Just googled her . Might start hanging around there for a odd pint !

odyssey06 · 30-05-2019 1:26pm

zell12 wrote: »

"Humanity has been crossed"
I'm still guffawing

We have been crossed... by our most deadly enemies... inanimate swings!

Has the swing sold their side of the story yet?
Well I was just sitting there minding me own business, when yer wan approaches me... and I think to meself, he comes trouble.
Turn to page 6 for more.

30-05-2019 1:31pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

She'd probably have a reasonable chance of winning that case to be fair.

At what stage does the Law Society of Ireland get involved or what role should they play in all this?

They can sanction the solicitor concerned. I remember with horror that I found a solicitor I was using (connected with family) had been sanctioned. I had been curious as to why they went absent for a while, and it didn’t seem to be illness, so I took a look at Law Society website, and it took a bit of going through this to see my solicitor had been sanctioned on account of defrauding somebody. Then heard through family that they had got into debt from buying property during “boom” and defrauded a member of their own family...meaning to pay them back, but all got out of hand. I had wondered why my solicitor, having had their own practice, was now working for another solicitor. They can practice, but must always be a supervised employee of another solicitor.

cj maxx · 30-05-2019 1:38pm

First thing I’d do with ‘our legal system is being able to fire judges . Then start striking off solicitors if they bend the rules .nothing to do with MB really but I’m fuming at contempt these basterds have for ordinary people. IMO of course!

Suckit · 30-05-2019 1:45pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Shatter has a serious axe to grind in this case as Josepha Madigan nabbed a seat ahead of him in the new constituency created in the last election.
TBH id always be looking for the agenda behind anything Shatter utters, hes an arrogant so and so who much like Bailey always plays the victim.

It came across like that. You could tell he was targeting her. But to be fair, he's not wrong.

FishOnABike · 30-05-2019 1:46pm

cjmc wrote: »

First thing I’d do with ‘our legal system is being able to fire judges . Then start striking off solicitors if they bend the rules .nothing to MB really but I’m fuming at contempt these basterds have for ordinary people. IMO of course!

Or simply automatically award costs agsinst the state to the applicant if a judicial review of a judge's decision is successful.

Seemingly neither a judge, nor the state as their employer, can be held financially accountable for legal costs where a judicial review of the judges decision is successful. This means that though in theory a Judicial Review provides a legal remedy, in practice - unless you have a reasonable five figure sum to spare - it is not accessible.

VinLieger · 30-05-2019 1:46pm

cjmc wrote: »

First thing I’d do with ‘our legal system is being able to fire judges .

Ahhh yes the tried and true first step to any effective dictatorship.

Not saying our judges arent **** but they also need way better direction from government via legislation and sentencing guidelines.

Simply firing the literal arbiters of law because you don't like what they think isn't a great idea.

Snow Garden · 30-05-2019 1:48pm

iamwhoiam wrote: »

https://www.dublinlive.ie/whats-on/food-drink-news/maria-bailey-swing-dublin-pub-16351758

They said: "It’s ironic how we are launching this cocktail on the same day we have to yet again write a cheque for a €600 administration fee to the Personal Injuries Board to facilitate another spurious claim against us in the coming months.
"Yes, that’s right. We have to pay for the pleasure of helping someone sue us."

An insane judicial system that is closing businesses the length and breadth of the country.

Businesses are really angry about this incident and insurance fraud.

I don't think even Fine Gael realise the damage she has caused.

joe40 · 30-05-2019 1:49pm

Raisins wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yes I’m familiar with the section I agree with that - I was pointing out it’s not simply a contempt of court situation but I understand now that wasn’t the point you were making.

If it was claimed you couldn’t run for three months and you then got into the witness box and this was discussed and at that stage under cross examination you again insisted you were injured for 3 months and then a defendant produced evidence of your race time 1 week after the accident, you would find it very hard to explain it away as a genuine error.

The point is that her claim is portrayed as a demonstration of a corrupt / rotten legal system.

You appear to have some legal knowledge and I admit I don't.
So just to make sure I have it right, If I am wilfully dishonest in an actual court case that is an offence, but false information I give beforehand in court documents is not an offence.

I would love to know how the conversation with the solicitor went at the beginning. Was she encouraged or coached in any way to say she could not run for three months even though this was blatantly false.
Just put in in we can change it later.. is that the sort of advice that is given.

Again apologies I'm not familiar with the legal system, and maybe "rotten" is a bit strong, but definitely reform is needed.
The details can be worked out by the people tasked to do, legislators and legal system. I'm not terribly optimistic though.

Tin Foil Hat · 30-05-2019 1:50pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Ahhh yes the tried and true first step to any effective dictatorship.

Not saying our judges arent **** but they also need way better direction from government via legislation and sentencing guidelines.

Simply firing the literal arbiters of law because you don't like what they think isn't a great idea.

In fairness, having judges who are notoriously generous with other peoples money isn't great either.

cj maxx · 30-05-2019 1:51pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Ahhh yes the tried and true first step to any effective dictatorship.

Not saying our judges arent **** but they also need way better direction from government via legislation and sentencing guidelines.

Simply firing the literal arbiters of law because you don't like what they think isn't a great idea.

Not even when they’re mentally incapacitated, breaking laws themselves.
It shouldn’t be easy to do , but an option available at the same time

30-05-2019 1:51pm

FishOnABike wrote: »

Seemingly neither a judge, nor the state as their employer, can be held financially accountable for legal costs where a judicial review of the judges decision is successful. This means that though in theory a Judicial Review provides a legal remedy, in practice - unless you have a reasonable five figure sum to spare - it is not accessible.

Plenty of judicial reviews are paid for by civil legal aid, or are taken on a pro-bono basis, and costs will almost always go against the State where the State fails in its defence. JUst like in any civil litigation.

I think everyone agrees that legal costs in Ireland are spectacularly high, but I'm not sure how judges are to blame for this...

Scoundrel · 30-05-2019 1:55pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I did not realise Alan Shatter wrote a book about his 'political assassination'

Frenzy and Betrayal: The Anatomy of a Political Assassination

https://irishacademicpress.ie/product/frenzy-and-betrayal-the-anatomy-of-a-political-assassination/

'Compelling and sardonic, Frenzy and Betrayal is the deeply disturbing story of how a dedicated, truthful and progressive Irish cabinet minister was falsely accused of wrongdoing and unjustly hounded from office in twenty-first-century Ireland, and his traumatic five-year battle for vindication and the truth.'

I am just wondering can he give Maria Bailey any advice on writing a book?
She might as well start now...

What title would it be?

WKD swings?

Another insufferable entitled pr1ck Fine Gael really does attract them.

VinLieger · 30-05-2019 2:07pm

cjmc wrote: »

Not even when they’re mentally incapacitated, breaking laws themselves.
It shouldn’t be easy to do , but an option available at the same time

It already is an option

https://aji.ie/the-judiciary/removal-from-judicial-office/

Suckit · 30-05-2019 2:07pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

Another insufferable entitled pr1ck Fine Gael Politics really does attract them.

FYP.

FishOnABike · 30-05-2019 2:10pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Plenty of judicial reviews are paid for by civil legal aid, or are taken on a pro-bono basis, and costs will almost always go against the State where the State fails in its defence. JUst like in any civil litigation.

I think everyone agrees that legal costs in Ireland are spectacularly high, but I'm not sure how judges are to blame for this...

Where the judicial review is against a state body, costs may be awarded against the state but aparently not when the judicial review is against a judges decision.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/state-not-liable-for-costs-in-judicial-review-proceedings-1.784367?mode=amp

Our judiciary enjoy a quasi-immunity against the awarding of costs, one of the few or possibly only professions to do so. This has a significant effect on the accesability of the theoretical remedy of judicial review.

ToBeFrank123 · 30-05-2019 2:14pm

Interesting precedent for bogus claims.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/solicitors-offices-searched-by-gardaí-in-bogus-claims-crackdown-1.3871865

The Law Society has said it has never received a single complaint against a solicitor being knowingly involved in fraudulent personal injury claims.
On Wednesday, four law offices were searched by gardaí in a new crackdown on suspected bogus claims, many of which involved false identities.
While solicitors acting in the cases were targeted as part of the newly formed Operation Coatee, which is investigating insurance claim fraud, it is understood this was most likely part of a dragnet to gather evidence against the claimants.
Solicitors are required by law to check and maintain proof of identity of clients where financial transactions take place, as a stipulation of money-laundering protections. However, there is no such legal obligation in personal injury cases.

Note the role of the solicitor firm in this instance, not bothering to check the identity of the claimants. In otherwords they were facilitating fraudulent activity without conducting due diligence, a common theme it seems from these solicitor firms.

BattleCorp · 30-05-2019 2:19pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Interesting precedent for bogus claims.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/solicitors-offices-searched-by-gardaí-in-bogus-claims-crackdown-1.3871865

Note the role of the solicitor firm in this instance, not bothering to check the identity of the claimants. In otherwords they were facilitating fraudulent activity without conducting due diligence, a common theme it seems from these solicitor firms.

Is there a legal obligation on solicitors to check that their clients are who they say they are? I doubt it.

ToBeFrank123 · 30-05-2019 2:29pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is there a legal obligation on solicitors to check that their clients are who they say they are? I doubt it.

Yep it said there wasn't a legal obligation.

Which is pretty shocking to be honest. Is it any wonder there are so many bogus claim attempts and each claim takes up insurance companies time and money as well as legal costs for those who are falsely claimed against.

Some solicitor firms will entertain any claim no matter how bogus or weak the case is.

ToBeFrank123 · 30-05-2019 2:36pm

Snow Garden wrote: »

Businesses are really angry about this incident and insurance fraud.

I don't think even Fine Gael realise the damage she has caused.

A solicitors firm can launch an insurance suit against these businesses, without bothering to check if the claimant is who they say they are, if they have a history of bogus claims, or without checking if the claimant is genuinely injured. And the business has to pay 600 euro to deal with these solicitor firms and their bogus claims.
The whole thing is a joke, presided over by successive governments, and a succession of ministers for justice who also happened to belong to the legal profession.

McMurphy · 30-05-2019 2:36pm

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

What do you believe?

Both versions probably.:pac:

seamus · 30-05-2019 2:36pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is there a legal obligation on solicitors to check that their clients are who they say they are? I doubt it.

Depends on the services provided. Solicitors helping you buy a house for example are required to verify your identity under money laundering legislation.

One of the problems here is that solicitors are in effect self-regulating via the law society.

And one of the most frustrating aspects of this is that when a representative of the LS is interviewed about bogus claims and unwinnable cases, they will claim that solicitors to a fault, never bring cases to court that are clearly fraudulent, are never involved in legal scams, and never bring a case that they think they can't win.

So as long as the law society continues to pretend that there's nothing wrong and that solicitors are infallible professionals who perform their role impeccably, dodgy solicitors will continue taking the piss.

golfball37 · 30-05-2019 2:40pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Ahhh yes the tried and true first step to any effective dictatorship.

Not saying our judges arent **** but they also need way better direction from government via legislation and sentencing guidelines.

Simply firing the literal arbiters of law because you don't like what they think isn't a great idea.

Separation of powers is a pillar of democracy on that id agree with you.

Maybe the people should elect them like America? I’d love the chance to can a judge who lets Wayne with 100 convictions back on the streets so a solicitor friend can hoover up future guaranteed free legal aid gravy

blanch152 · 30-05-2019 2:41pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not defending Bailey either. I don't think many would defend her.

25.—(1) If, after the commencement of this section, a person gives or dishonestly causes to be given, or adduces or dishonestly causes to be adduced, evidence in a personal injuries action that—

(a) is false or misleading in any material respect, and

(b) he or she knows to be false or misleading,

he or she shall be guilty of an offence.

Check out the bit I highlighted in bold. You have to know that it is false or misleading. So if it was a genuine error (and I'm not saying that), it's not an offence.

What does "gives evidence" in this Section mean?

Is it evidence in a statement of claim?
Is it evidence in a sworn affadavit?
Is it evidence in court only?

Be right back · 30-05-2019 2:49pm

Well, the hotel has confirmed that the case has been officially dropped!

Wheety · 30-05-2019 2:54pm

I'm still laughing at her contradicting herself within about 10 minutes during that interview.

Sean, I couldn't go home for 3 days because of this.

Sean, I had to work from home all week.

ToBeFrank123 · 30-05-2019 2:59pm

5 of the last 7 Ministers for Justice come from legal backgrounds. I'm not sure of Charlie Flanagans previous career. There isn't a hope of them taking on the legal establishment when it comes to PI claims.

30-05-2019 3:05pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

5 of the last 7 Ministers for Justice come from legal backgrounds. I'm not sure of Charlie Flanagans previous career. There isn't a hope of them taking on the legal establishment when it comes to PI claims.

Alan Shatter's name is mud with a lot of barristers. His Legal Services Bill, now very much diminished, would have been a huge advancement for the rights of litigants and access to the courts.

Mary Robinson herself, as a lawyer, was instrumental in developing the law on access to legal aid in this country. It has to be recognizer that some of the most important progress in public access to the courts has been driven by lawyers.

whisky_galore · 30-05-2019 3:05pm

Wheety wrote: »

I'm still laughing at her contradicting herself within about 10 minutes during that interview.

Sean, I couldn't go home for 3 days because of this.

Sean, I had to work from home all week.

Maybe she has two or more houses?
With housekeepers, bills to pay?
I tell you, you should try it sometime!

VinLieger · 30-05-2019 3:12pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Alan Shatter's name is mud with a lot of barristers. His Legal Services Bill, now very much diminished, would have been a huge advancement for the rights of litigants and access to the courts.

The reason his name is mud with pretty much every barrister is when he was an opposition TD and still practicing Law he pretty much demanded the title of senior counsel barrister despite never having trained as a barrister. The only reason for this was so he could charge senior counsel rates which far outstrip those of a solicitor fees.

This is also a big part of why his legal services bill faced so much opposition because he had absolutely nobody willing to get on his side because of all the bad blood he had created. Granted it would have likely faced opposition anyway but he effectively made it impossible due to his arrogance.

Of course he still paints himself as the victim in all of this though.

brooke 2 · 30-05-2019 3:17pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Don't forget though that Shatter's opinion there is only his opinion. His opinion isn't law. Legal people often nearly always disagree.

I'm surprised at Shatter being FG criticising someone else from FG. It's almost as if he has a gripe against the party over something or other.

It was also Thomas Byrne's opinion last night with Ivan and Matt. He said he is a solicitor and would not have taken the case.

30-05-2019 3:29pm

VinLieger wrote: »

The reason his name is mud with pretty much every barrister is when he was an opposition TD and still practicing Law he pretty much demanded the title of senior counsel barrister despite never having trained as a barrister. The only reason for this was so he could charge senior counsel rates which far outstrip those of a solicitor fees.

This is also a big part of why his legal services bill faced so much opposition because he had absolutely nobody willing to get on his side because of all the bad blood he had created. Granted it would have likely faced opposition anyway but he effectively made it impossible due to his arrogance.

Of course he still paints himself as the victim in all of this though.

I have a lot of time for Shatter, I like that he's enormously bright, that he is his own man, that he is unafraid to speak his mind; and that he usually advocates in the public interest,above party loyalty.

But lets leave aside whether or not we like the man.

Is he a lawyer? Yes
Did he make sincere and important efforts to drag the legal professions into the 21st century, despite huge opposition from vested interests? Undoubtedly, yes.

Therefore, this idea that lawyers qua policymakers will always protect one another, and drive-on that gravy train, is patently false.

brooke 2 · 30-05-2019 3:34pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Shatter has a serious axe to grind in this case as Josepha Madigan nabbed a seat ahead of him in the new constituency created in the last election.

TBH id always be looking for the agenda behind anything Shatter utters, hes an arrogant so and so who much like Bailey always plays the victim.

Yes, I seem to recall there was bad blood between Shatter and Madigan. Guess Shatter would be only too glad to get the boot in.

BattleCorp · 30-05-2019 3:47pm

blanch152 wrote: »

What does "gives evidence" in this Section mean?

Is it evidence in a statement of claim?
Is it evidence in a sworn affadavit?
Is it evidence in court only?

Evidence can be anything that you use to back up a personal injury claim. It can be a statement, medical report, engineering report, affidavit etc.

Evidence isn't always fact. One witness can give evidence and say one thing and another witness may say another. It doesn't mean that they are lying, but it could mean that they are.

Engineering reports often differ too. One engineer may attribute the cause of the accident to one thing and the other engineer might have a different opinion.

Just because something is presented as evidence doesn't make it fact. It's up to the court to decide what is fact.

BattleCorp · 30-05-2019 3:51pm

brooke 2 wrote: »

It was also Thomas Byrne's opinion last night with Ivan and Matt. He said he is a solicitor and would not have taken the case.

Normally all a solicitor has to go on is what their client tells them. If their client is lying or exaggerating, how can they know for sure.

It's easy for yer man Thomas Byrne to be wise once all the facts are known and say he wouldn't have taken the case. Go back two or three years ago when all the facts weren't known and he might have given a different answer.

ToBeFrank123 · 30-05-2019 3:52pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have a lot of time for Shatter, I like that he's enormously bright, that he is his own man, that he is unafraid to speak his mind; and that he usually advocates in the public interest,above party loyalty.

But lets leave aside whether or not we like the man.

Is he a lawyer? Yes
Did he make sincere and important efforts to drag the legal professions into the 21st century, despite huge opposition from vested interests? Undoubtedly, yes.

Therefore, this idea that lawyers qua policymakers will always protect one another, and drive-on that gravy train, is patently false.

And yet the fact that Personal Injury claims and insurance costs are out of control and regulation around it is equivalent to the wild west would say otherwise.

After numerous justice ministers in the last 10 years, most of them with a legal background, a solicitor can still bring a personal injury case against a business without any legal requirement to verify the identity of the claimant, without any legal requirement to do some basic checks on the veracity of the claim, without considering if the claimant was negligent or not, or if they have a history of claims.
And if a claimant lies in a PI case, there appears to be no criminal penalties that can be brought against them.
And if someone tries to find out who lies, solicitors can fall back on "client-solicitor confidentiality".

What a complete failure of successive governments and ministers for justice. And each bogus claim costs money to process and if insurance companies fight it and win, it will still cost them.

This is one of the reasons why insurance costs continue to rise. The PI industry is out of control.

SnazzyPig · 30-05-2019 3:54pm

Did I hear of a spokesman for the assoication of lawyers that represents these claimants try to make the case that the ridicule Maria Bailey has vbeen subjected to would put off genuine victims of negligence etc. from taking cases, akin to the victims of rape being deterred from seeking justice because of the trauma of the trial process?

Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Comments