The high court 2011 no. 5490 p between kevin reynolds plaintiff and radio telefis eireann defendant ruling on instructions fee and brief fees



Download 153.31 Kb.
Page1/4
Date conversion06.02.2017
Size153.31 Kb.
  1   2   3   4
[2012] IELCA 13

THE HIGH COURT

2011 NO. 5490 P

BETWEEN

KEVIN REYNOLDS

PLAINTIFF

AND

RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN

DEFENDANT

RULING ON INSTRUCTIONS FEE AND BRIEF FEES.

In this action the plaintiff, a Catholic priest and a member of the Missionary Society of Mill Hill Missionaries, claimed damages for defamation including aggravated and punitive damages against the defendant arising out of its broadcast on or about 23 May 2011 of a ‘Prime Time Investigates’ programme entitled ‘Mission to Prey’ and a subsequent broadcast on a ‘Morning Ireland’ programme.

It was the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant falsely and maliciously published allegations concerning him which were scandalous and wholly without justification. It was asserted in the broadcasts that the plaintiff while a missionary priest in Kenya raped a girl identified as Venerenda who was under age and imposed himself upon her and had sexual intercourse with her at a time when she was a maid in a house which the plaintiff frequented. It was alleged that the plaintiff had fathered a child, Sheila, by her in or about 1982. It was alleged that the plaintiff prevailed upon the alleged victim to remain silent about the alleged sexual contact and to conceal his alleged involvement in the conception of the child. It was further alleged that the plaintiff paid for the education of the said child.

The action was settled on the first day of the trial. An apology was read out in open court in which the defendant, inter alia, accepted that the allegations which it had aired against the plaintiff were entirely false, without foundation and should never have been broadcast. Very substantial damages were paid to the plaintiff. Unusually, a statement by way of apology was read in Court by the plaintiff’s own senior counsel. In addition the Court issued, on the consent of the parties, a formal Correction Order.

The Order of 17 November 2011 as to costs states:

By consent IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s costs including any reserved costs and any costs of discovery herein be taxed and that the Defendant do pay the said costs when taxed and ascertained and that the action be struck out of the list.”

The plaintiff’s bill of costs was listed for taxation before me on 22 March 2012, the plaintiff being represented by his solicitor Mr. Robert Dore and by Mr. William Brennan, Legal Costs Accountant. The defendant being represented by Ms. Patricia Harrington, Solicitor and Mr. Paul Conlon, Legal Costs Accountant. All items save those relating to the brief fees of counsel and the instructions fee were taxed on that date and, having heard the submissions of the parties in relation to the outstanding items, I reserved my ruling thereon.

The taxation was lengthy, during the course of which the pleadings and other relevant documentation were discussed at some length. Prior to the taxation I had received copies of the plaintiff’s solicitor’s correspondence file, a book of pleadings and other documentation. In addition, subsequent to the taxation I received for perusal, further papers which were stated to comprise the brief for junior counsel. I have now carefully considered the documentation in conjunction with the submissions of the parties.

Initially, Mr. Conlon raised a preliminary issue concerning the extent of the indemnity in respect of the plaintiff’s solicitor’s professional fees to which the defendant could be held liable, having regard to the amount quoted in the plaintiff’s solicitor’s bill of costs dated 8 December 2011. The sum quoted was €60,000 plus VAT and it was asserted that this figure represents the maximum sum by way of solicitor’s professional fee, to which the defendant could be held liable as between party and party. This was strongly disputed on the basis that the sum quoted was intended to be no more than a payment on account pending the outcome of the taxation of the party and party costs.

Having considered the letter of 8 December 2011 which accompanied the plaintiff’s said bill of costs I ruled against the defendant. The letter is in the following terms:

Dear Kevin

Our telephone conversation of even date refers and as discussed herewith my fee note in part payment of whatever fees are ultimately due.

I look forward to receipt of payment and we can revisit the matter after the taxation or settlement of party and party costs.”

It seemed to me evident from the contents of this letter that the plaintiff’s solicitor had merely sought a payment on account of professional fees and in the circumstances it would be unjust to impose the limitation sought on behalf of the defendant.

At commencement of the taxation and by way of brief introduction Mr. Brennan provided some background information and referred to the case as “one of the most serious defamations in recent years.” The plaintiff had initially instructed Fair & Murtagh Solicitors on or about 11 April 2011 prior to the defendant’s broadcast and I was also referred to a list of consultations which the plaintiff’s current solicitor had prepared commencing with the initial meeting with the intended plaintiff on 16 June 2011. I will return to this later.

At the conclusion of the taxation hearing on 22 March 2012 I requested that the plaintiff’s solicitor’s original correspondence file be made available to me for consideration. By letter dated 13 April 2012 the plaintiff’s solicitor informed me that the original file “was effectively dismantled in the context of preparing briefs for counsel but the books of documentation that have been furnished to you constitute a replica of my entire file”.

It is difficult to understand why the solicitor’s correspondence file should have been dismantled to facilitate preparation of the brief. This is highly unusual in my experience.

On the basis of the solicitor’s letter of 13 April 2011 the following books of documents appear to constitute the entire file:

1. Untitled and unindexed book of documents (Vol. 1) comprising copy emails, draft pleadings, draft and copy inter-partes and other correspondence [Pages 1 to 323].

2. Further untitled and unindexed book (Vol. 2) comprising emails, correspondence, statements of plaintiff, draft apologies, draft statement for the Court and draft Correction Order. [pages 324 – 504]

3. Book of pleadings including Orders and documentation relating to interlocutory applications.

4. Book of inter-partes correspondence.

5. Untitled book comprising 6 parts:

I. Statement of claim;

II. Defence and reply;

III. Pre broadcast inter-partes correspondence;

IV. Post broadcast inter-partes correspondence;

V. Transcript of plaintiff’s draft apology;

VI. Transcript of defendant’s statement.

6. Book of landline outgoing calls.

7. Book of landline incoming calls.

I have also received a box containing documents with the notation “Papers returned by Ms. Miriam Reilly BL” which I understood to contain one complete copy of the brief for counsel and comprising:

1) A folder which seems to constitute part of the plaintiff’s solicitor’s original correspondence file together with counsel’s own correspondence , research etc. [Green folder]

2) There is also a separate Blue folder of drafts relating to the statement to be read out in Court and the Correction Order.

3) Book of pleadings.

4) Book of inter partes correspondence 17 June 2011 to 19 October 2011.

5) Book of inter partes correspondence 17 June 2011 to 10 November 2011.

6) Untitled book comprising 6 parts (i) to (vi), as above.

7) Bundle of documents comprising case law, copy correspondence, handwritten notes; drafts etc.

In light of the submissions on behalf of the respective parties, to which I refer later, and given the unusual manner in which the solicitor’s file has been presented to me, together with the plaintiff’s solicitor’s confirmation that he did not take or subsequently prepare any attendance notes of meetings had with client or counsel, I think it necessary to set out, in chronological order, the contents of Vols. (1) and (2) being the untitled books already referred to. These Volumes appear to constitute the principal elements of the solicitor’s file and provide a guide to the professional work being undertaken at the various stages of the matter. For the sake of completeness I also set out the correspondence which emanated from Fair & Murtagh, Solicitors, which firm had initially acted on behalf of the plaintiff.


SCHEDULE OF CORRESPONDENCE

A. Fair & Murtagh, Solicitors (FM)

1. Letter 11 May 2011 FM to RTE with denials on behalf of client and asserting the inevitability of defamation proceedings if the broadcast is made.

2. Email 18 May 2011 Aoife Kavanagh (AK) of RTE to FM confirming intention to broadcast and raising further questions for Fr. Reynolds [see also 4th schedule to Statement of Claim].

3. Letter (undated) FM to AK: strongly reiterating client’s denials, enclosing Bishop Sulumeti’s (BS) letter of reference etc.

4. Copy BS letter 14 October 2003.

5. Email 26 May 2011 AK to FM: asserting that ‘Prime Time’ could stand over each and every allegation etc.

6. Copy email 20 May 2011 AK to BS and replying email BS to AK of same date.

B. Dore & Company (‘Dore’)

1. Email 16 June 2011:

Fr. Kevin Reynolds (KR) to Dore attaching response from RTE to request for copy ‘Morning Ireland’ transcript.

2. Email 22 June 2011:

Dore to Frank Callanan S.C. (FC) attaching draft letter proposed to be sent to RTE.

3. Similar draft letter to KR for approval and response thereto.

4. Copy ‘Morning Ireland’ transcript.

5. Further copy of same transcript.

6. Email Dore to FC 22 June 2011:

With copy of above transcript.

7. Email 22 June 2011:

FC to Dore with two attachments (a) letter advices and (b) amended draft letter to RTE.

8. June 22 2011:

Email Dore to KR with draft letter as amended by FC.

9. Email: KR to Dore with suggested further amendment to draft letter.

10. Email 23 June 2011:

Miriam Reilly B.L. (MR) to Dore with further suggested amendments to draft letter and advices and further email same date confirming statement of claim had been drafted.

11. Email 24 June 2011:

MR to Dore attaching draft statement of claim with covering letter (also emailed to FC).

12. Email 27 June 2011:

Dore to FC with copy email 26 June received from KR enclosing (a) Email AF (RTE) to BS 20 May 2011 and (b) reply from BS to AK 20 May 2011.

13. Email 27 June 2011:

KR to Dore as to arrangements for downloading the pre-broadcast advertisements.

14. Email 27 June 2011:

MR to solicitor and FC - attached transcript of ‘Morning Ireland’ of 24 May 2011.

15. Email 27 June 2011:

MR to Dore and FC with list of Stations which broadcast the programme and responding email of same date from solicitor attaching list of broadcasts/programmes (11 in number).

16. Email 27 June 2011:

Dore to FC attaching copy letter of 23 June 2011 Dore to RTE (this is the final letter emerging from the drafts referred to above).

17. Further attachment to above email with copy letter Dore to RTE acknowledging appearance and requesting urgent response to letter of 23 June and pressing for defence.

18. Email 27 June 2011:

KR to Dore with further instructions concerning the correspondence between RTE and BS.

19. Email 27 June 2011: KR to Dore.

20. Email 28 June 2011:

FC to solicitor and MR with settled draft statement of claim.

21. Email 28 June 2011:

Dore to KR attaching settled draft statement of claim.

22. Email 30 June 2011:

FC to Dore attaching draft letter to be sent to RTE expressing astonishment at the failure of the Station to broadcast a retraction; pressing for paternity test; requesting identity of the “very credible third party source”, alleged in AK’s email to FM Solicitors of 18 May 2011; pressing for defence.

23. Email 30 June 2011:

MR to Dore and FC attaching draft grounding affidavit for relief pursuant to Order 122 Rule 7 of Rules of the Superior Courts.

24. Email 30 June 2011:

MR to Dore attaching draft grounding affidavit for short service.

25. Email 30 June 2011:

MR to Dore attaching draft notice of motion.

26. Email 30 June 2011:

KR to Dore with further instructions and draft letter proposed to be sent by KR to his Superiors outlining the position.

27. Email 1 July 2011:

MR attaching draft letter for consideration.

28. Email 1 July 2011:

MR to Dore attaching draft letter as settled.

29. Further email 1 July 2011:

MR to Dore with additional amendments to draft letter as suggested by FC.

30. Email 1 July 2011: RTE to Dore.

31. Email 2 July 2011: KR to Dore.

32. Email 4 July 2011:

Dore to FC with draft letter proposed to be sent to RTE.

33. Email 5 July 2011:

Dore to MR and FC with amended draft notice of motion (Order 122 Rule 7) and draft affidavit for short service.

34. Email 7 July 2011:

Dore to MR with copy letter of same date to RTE as to listing of application on the following morning and emphasising the extreme urgency.

35. Email 7 July 2011:

Dore to RTE as to date and time for hearing of motion.

36. Email 7 July 2011: Dore to MR as to time for hearing of motion.

37. Email 7 July 2011:

Dore to FC with 3 attachments namely letter of 7 July 2011 from RTE attaching notice for particulars, letter from RTE and cover sheet.

38. Email 7 July 2011:

Dore to FC attaching letter of 7 July 2011 from RTE (re paternity test arrangements).

39. Email 8 July 2011: KR to Dore with further instructions.

40. Email 8 July 2011:

To FC with draft replies to defendant’s notice for particulars for settlement.

41. Document entitled “Memo of judgement of 9 July 2011” [re motion for judgement in default defence].

42. Email 11 July 2011:

Dore to FC with draft letter to RTE (re paternity test issues).

43. Email 11 July 2011:

Dore to Ormond Quay Paternity Services attaching DNA profiling request with confirmation that RTE had agreed to bear all costs.

44. Email 11 July 2011:

FC to Dore and MR attaching draft letter to RTE as settled.

45. Email 11 July 2011:

FC to Dore and MR with a covering letter re amended draft letter.

46. Email 15 July 2011: Dore to FC with attached letter from RTE.

47. 15 July 2011: Notice for further and better particulars of same date.

48. Email 18 July 2011:

KR to Dore with attached document setting out the affect of the broadcast outlined and his current feelings.

49. Email 18 July 2011:

Dore to FC with attached draft replies to notice for further and better particulars (also sent to MR).

50. Email 18 July 2011:

Dore to FC with attached draft letter to RTE (as to paternity test issues and replies to particulars).

51. 19 July 2011:

MR to Dore and FC attaching amended draft replies to particulars with advices.

52. Email 19 July 2011:

FC to Dore with attached draft letter re paternity issues.

53. Email 22 July 2011:

Dore to FC with attached letter from RTE re paternity test issues.

54. Email 26 July 2011:

FC to Dore with attached draft letter to RTE re paternity test issues.

55. Email 28 July 2011:

Dore to FC forwarding message received from KR concerning information received that Sheila, the alleged daughter, had written to Superior General saying that KR was not her father.

56. Email 29 July 2011:

Dore to FC with attached draft letter concerning paternity test issues and delays.

57. Email 29 July 2011: FC to Dore with amended draft letter.

58. Email 2 August 2011:

KR to Dore with attached correspondence.

59. Email 3 August 2011:

Client to Dore with attached further instructions concerning “fallout” from broadcast and ongoing personal damage.

60. Email 3 August 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached draft letter to RTE of 3 August 2011 and RTE’s letter of same date.

61. Email 4 August 2011:

MR to Dore with attached draft letter (email also refers to consultation of 3 August 2011 – no attendance note on file).

62. Email 4 August 2011:

FC to Dore referring to solicitor’s modus operandi.

63. Email 19 September 2011:

FC to Dore attaching approved draft letter; together with attachment of draft letter to RTE solicitor as to paternity test issues and enclosing handwritten letter 11 July 2011 from Sheila Mudi to Mill Hill Missionaries in Nairobi with explanation that the letter had been authenticated by Fr. Patrick T. Ryan and claim that the letter further established that the defamation was without foundation.

64. Email 8 August 2011: KR to Dore with attached instructions.

65. Email 8 August 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached draft letter to RTE solicitor seeking urgent response to letter of 4 August and also enclosing draft notice of motion for judgement in default of defence to be issued.

66. Email 8 August 2011:

FC to Dore with amendment of attached draft letter duly amended.

67. Email 10 August 2011:

Dore to FC with attached letter of same date received from RTE solicitor.

68. Email 12 August 2011:

FC to Dore with attached draft reply to RTE solicitor.

69. Email 12 August 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached letter of 9 August 2011 Dore to RTE solicitor [this letter seems to be misdated and should have been dated 12 August 2011].

70. Email 17 August 2011:

KR to Dore with attached instructions under the heading ‘Buried Alive’.

71. Email 24 August 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached copy letter to RTE solicitor and notice of motion for judgement in default of defence returnable 21 September 2011.

72. Email 26 August 2011: KR to Dore.

73. Email 25 August 2011:

Dore to FC, MR and KR with attached letter 25 August 2011 to RTE solicitor again complaining of delay in relation to paternity testing and the admission by Sheila Mudi that the plaintiff is not her father and her refusal to undergo a paternity test; outlining the position in some detail; the representations by the defendant’s S.C. to the Court on 8 July 2011 and further matters.

74. Email 26 August 2011:

Dore to FC, KR and MR with attached letter of 26 August 2011 received from RTE solicitor confirming that DNA test had been completed and had been forwarded for lab assessment.

75. Email 29 August 2011: KR to Dore with instructions.

76 Email 2 September 2011:

KR to Dore with instructions re Irish Times publication 30 August 2011.

77. Email 4 September 2011:

KR to Dore with attached memorandum concerning meeting with Fr. P.T. Ryan on 4 September 2011.

78. Email 6 September 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached draft letter to RTE solicitor (concerning contact by Kevin Keane, journalist with the plaintiff advising him of the result of the paternity test) and KR’s and Dore’s shock etc. at the leaking thereof even before the client had been advised of the negative result.

79. Email 6 September 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached responding letter from RTE solicitor and a re-test being suggested.

80. Email 7 September 2011:

Ormond Quay Paternity Services to Dore with attached letter concerning unsatisfactory procedures surrounding the testing in Nairobi and recommending re-test in Nairobi only.

81. Email 9 September 2011:

KR to Dore with instructions as to the congratulatory messages received by him: the underlying allegation of statutory rape against him; the necessity for a retraction etc.

82. Email 10 September 2011:

KR to Dore with attached instructions concerning the alleged rape a spect.

83. Email 12 September 2011:

KR to Dore with attached instructions concerning “the impact of this libel on my life”.

84. Email 13 September 2011:

KR to Dore outlining contact information for BS.

85. Email 13 September 2011:

KR to Dore referring to telephone call and questioning the assertion that Sheila Mudi was not in possession of her identity card at the relevant time as Kenyan law required a citizen to be in possession of such at all times.

86. Email 13 September 2011: KR to Dore (repeat of above).

87. Email 15 September 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached draft affidavit of Robert Dore setting out the facts to date and grounding application for judgement in default of defence.

88. Email 15 September 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached draft letter to RTE solicitor noting failure of the defendant to formally and publicly acknowledge the result of the test and emphasising the damage being caused by continuing delay.

89. Email 15 September 2011:

FC to Dore with amended draft affidavit.

90. Email 16 September 2011:

FC to Dore with attached amended draft letter to RTE solicitor.

91. Email 19 September 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached draft letter to RTE solicitor for approval.

92. Email 19 September 2011:

FC to Dore with attached approved draft letter as amended.

93. Email 19 September 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached draft letter (concerning second sample taken from Sheila Mudi), for approval.

94. Email 21 September 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached letter 20 September 2011 from RTE solicitor and affidavit of Anne McManus Solicitor (replying to affidavit grounding application for judgement); together with exhibits thereto (one of which was letter from DNA testing agency confirming second negative result).

95. Email 21 September 2011:

FC to Dore with attached chronology of events.

96. Email 28 September 2011:

MR to Dore with attached letter for setting down the action for trial.

97. Email 29 September 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached letter from RTE solicitor by way of apology to KR and suggestion that the statements were made at the time in good faith, together with offer to publish an apology in the form, content and manner agreeable to the plaintiff.

98. Email 26 September 2011:

KR to Dore, forwarding email received from Rev. T. and with attached letter from Mrs. LW, Kenya.

99. Email 26 September 2011:

KR to Dore with client’s response to Rev. T. and responding to letter which was clearly unreliable and utterly untrue.

100. Email 29 September 2011:

FC to Dore with attached draft letter to RTE in reference to the apology received.

VOLUME 2.

101. Email 29 September 2011: KR to Dore with instructions.

102. Email 29 September 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached draft apology marked “For discussion purposes only”.

103. Email 29 September 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached letter from RTE solicitor as to the defendant’s intention to give evidence at the trial that it had offered an apology to the plaintiff and in that regard would rely on its letter of 28 September 2011.

104. Email 29 September 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached letter enclosing defence and notice of payment into court of a sum proposed to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim.

105. Email 30 September 2011:

FC to Dore attaching letter of advices and “re worked” draft apology.

106. Email 30 September 2011:

FC to Dore with attached draft reply to defence and covering letter with the comment “the only issue is whether we felt that discovery was necessary to deal with the “Reynolds” defence pleaded at paragraphs 8 and 9. I am not sure that it is but it is something we need to consider.”

107. Email 30 September 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with KR’s comments on draft apology.

108. Email 3 October 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached amended apology.

109. Email 3 October 2011:

Dore to FC with attached draft letter to RTE solicitor intended to accompany a proposed apology.

110. Email 5 October 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached letter of 5 October received from RTE solicitor accompanied by amended version of apology and proposed to be read out on Thursday 6 October 2011 at 9.30 p.m. to be repeated the following morning on ‘Morning Ireland’ programme.

111. Email 5 October 2011:

Dore to FC and KR attaching draft letter proposed to be sent to RTE solicitor in response to suggested apology.

112. Email 5 October 2011: Dore to KR with attached draft letter.

113. Email 6 October 2011:

Dore to FC and KR with attached letter of same date received from RTE agreeing to insertion of additional paragraph and attaching finalised apology to be published.

114. Email 7 October 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached draft statement of KR “for discussion purposes only”.

115. Email 7 October 2011:

FC to Dore with amended draft statement of KR.

116. Email 14 October 2011:

FC to Dore with attached preliminary advice on proofs.

The advice on proofs was accompanied by an updated chronology of events.

117. Copy letter 30 September 2011:

RTE solicitor to Dore that plaintiff’s request for discovery be made in a manner pursuant to Rules of the Superior Courts.

118. Copy letter 30 September 2011:

Dore to RTE solicitor requesting tape of the entirety of the interview of 7 May 2011 with Fr. Reynolds.

119. Draft letter 17 October 2011:

Dore to RTE solicitor in reference to senior counsel’s advice on proofs to the effect that it would be necessary to provide facilities in court for the broadcasting of certain material and further that information as to the occasions on which pre-advertisements of the broadcast were made should be available to the jury.

120. Draft letter 17 October 2011:

Dore to RTE solicitor that previous letter of 30 September 2011 could not be construed as a request for discovery and the response was example of “utterly uncooperative attitude adopted by your client from the outset”.

121. Email 18 October 2011:

FC to Dore attaching above mentioned draft letters duly settled.

122. Email 26 October 2011:

MR to Dore, FC and Jack Fitzgerald (JF), Senior Counsel, advising re viewership of the apology on 6 October 2011 and attaching information received from Ronan O’Loughlin of Digitize (Digital Media Solutions).

123. Email 27 October 2011:

Dore to FC and MR attaching letter of advices of 26 October 2011 received from JF (letter refers to consultation held on the previous day).

124. Email 27 October 2011:

Dore to MR attaching copy senior counsel’s advice on proofs.

125. Email 27 October 2011:

MR to Dore and FC attaching explanatory letter of same date together with draft letter to RTE in relation to viewership/listenership numbers and publication over the internet. Counsel also makes reference to consultation on 25 October 2011.

126. Email 28 October 2011:

Dore to FC and MR attaching letter to RTE of same date (as drafted by MR).

127. Email 28 October 2011:

Dore to FC and MR attaching two draft letters intended for RTE solicitor, (a) as to practical arrangements for broadcast facilities in Court etc. and (b) concerning the uplifting of 7 minute excerpt of the broadcast programme referable to KR, to YouTube and requesting its removal.

128. Email 1 November 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached letter of 1 November 2011 from RTE solicitor.

129. Email 1 November 2011:

JF to Dore and counsel attaching draft document (statement and settlement terms) – for consideration as to using in Court (by consent).

130. Email 3 November 2011: MR to Dore (attachment missing).

131. Email 3 November 2011:

Dore to FC and MR with attached précis of evidence prepared by plaintiff.

132. Email 3 November 2011:

JF to Dore and counsel acknowledging receipt of plaintiff’s settlement and providing brief advices.

133. Email 3 November 2011:

Dore to all counsel attaching letter of same date from RTE solicitor outlining, inter alia, the nature and extent of the documentation which the defendant would provide to the plaintiff.

134. Email 4 November 2011:

Dore to all counsel attaching draft responding letter to RTE solicitor.

135. Email 4 November 2011:

JF to Dore with proposed alternative draft letter by way of response to RTE solicitor.

136. Email 4 November 2011: MR to Dore – no suggestions on draft letter.

137. Email 4 November 2011: JF to Dore (repeat of email of same date).

138. Email 4 November 2011:

JF to Dore – further consideration of responding letter and proposed amendments.

139. Email 4 November 2011:

MR to Dore and all counsel attaching her research into libel awards and settlements.

140. Email 10 November 2011:

Dore to all counsel attaching RTE solicitor’s letter of same date.

141. Email 10 November 2011:

Dore to all counsel by way of forwarding copy email received from KR in advance of consultation arranged for 3.45 p.m. that day – outlines KR’s current feelings “in a good place” etc. and matters which are unsettling him.

142. Email 11 November 2011:

JF to Dore attaching first draft of proposed Correction Order.

143. Email 11 November 2011:

Dore to JF and other counsel with suggested amendment to Correction Order.

144. Email 11 November 2011:

JF to Dore with further draft Correction Order as of 2.59 on 11 November 2011.

145. Email 14 November 2011:

Dore to all counsel with attached letter of same date from RTE solicitor enclosing, information concerning broadcast and dvd of promotions of broadcasts together with transcripts and information concerning listenership and viewership.

146. Email 14 November 2011:

Dore to all counsel forwarding message received from Marcus Stewart, Producer of Earth Horizon Productions Limited in reference to dvds for broadcast in Court and the editing of the original RTE interview with Fr. Reynolds.

147. Email 14 November 2011:

Dore to all counsel forwarding further email from Marcus Stewart.

148. Email 14 November 2011:

MR to Dore and other counsel attaching (a) draft statement to be read in Court and (noted at conclusion thereof as having been settled by “Jack and Miriam 4.00 p.m.”; and (b) covering letter.

149. Email 14 November 2011:

Dore to all counsel attaching document entitled ‘Mission to Prey’ promotional advertisements.

In addition to the foregoing the plaintiff’s solicitor also prepared a document entitled “Date of consultations” as follows:




  1   2   3   4


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page