From top: Madigan Solicitors, Molesworth Street, Dublin 2; Maria Bailey and Minister for Arts Josepha Madigan
“I think there has been a fair degree of murkiness…. The degree of Josepha Madigan’s involvement should be fully transparent and should be clarified.
I think the Minister [Madigan] needs to make a full, comprehensive statement in relation to that.
At the moment we’re being told that the report says she hadn’t an involvement, but then we’re told she was involved in the initial documentation.
What does that mean?
Did she advise Maria Bailey to take the case?
She needs to answer the basic question: did she or did she not advise in the early stages Maria Bailey to take the case.”
Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin
Josepha Madigan needs to clarify her involvement in Maria Bailey case, says Martin (Irish Times)
Last night: “There Have Been Inconsistencies In Deputy Bailey’s Account of Events”
Hugh O’Connell, the political journalist, was on the radio earlier and when asked about Josepha Madigan’s role in this dodgy compo claim, he said.
“She walked away from me when I tried to ask her questions about this”
If Josepha was involved with “the initial documentation” as appears to be the case, was she the solicitor who specifically discussed the running disability when Maria decided to overstate the injury. As a personal injuries specialist (she’s certainly not a loan documentation specialist!) how has Josepha deterred clients from making exaggerated claims?
What’s the point of Martin making statements or asking questions like this?
He’ll still back the status quo… what ever about this story, his insistence on confidence and supply agreement after the HSE, Dept of Health debacles in cervical screening, children’s hospital and the Broadband plan…
Just like FF pointless…
Isn’t it shocking that we’re still none the wiser about Maria’s compo claim against her then employer Aer Lingus in 2005. That was at the High Court so there would have been much more moolah involved.
High Court Judgements are available via Courts.ie, so it’s really a matter of getting through the horrible search engine if you want information.
Interesting it says details updated yesterday? And of course, no details avail… https://snag.gy/h1JXxb.jpg
Right, date always look to show the day before… no conspiracy :D
As far as usknown, that case didn’t go to court and was either dropped or settled. A FOI to Aer Lingus (if that were possible)?
Do we not have legal professional privilege in Ireland? A lawyer cannot disclose privileged information on a client.
Has Varadkar then divulged information by saying that Madigan initially was advising her? Or if she divulged that to Varadkar then would that not be contrary to what you’re trying to say?
And if Madigan knew the claim was exaggerated then where does that leave her?
Wasn’t that already in the public domain?
Madigan on 10th July refused to say whether she gave legal advise citing client confidentiality.
Presumably, Bailey waived her right to privilege in the internal FG inquiry. Otherwise, what was the point. As that privilege being waived and with the consent of her client, presumably Madigan was in a position to tell the full truth with respect to her involvement.
As far as I can tell, Madigan was professionally involved in the early stages when the over-stated nature of the claim arose. What her role was at later stages is unclear, even if she wasn’t formally engaged to provide legal advice, she will have run into Bailey every day in Leinster House and perhaps outside and maybe there were personal conversations with a professional undertone.
If a potential client rocks into your office, exaggerates (as has been agreed upon as having happened) their claims and asks for your take on it, are/should you be on the hook for saying that there’s a statable case there?
I have no love for Madigan but I’m not sure I like the idea of political machinations determining whether or not people should be able to avail of recourse to the courts
Some people here have no interest whatsoever in your nuance
You may be right but the inference we are supposed to take here is that the initial consultation with the solicitor informed the subsequent padding/ over stating of the claim. The phrase “statable case” is legal waffle for “the solicitor did nothing wrong, it was the client’s sworn affidavit”. That’s how attorneys here cover their ass.
High Priestess Madigan was on a flight to JFK last month, sent her PA to the front of the aircraft: “the Minister requests a business seat.” Rebuffed. Ministerial entitlement complex…
I’d love to believe that were true and that there was a gaggle of Irish journalists pestering her in economy.
Does being there and hearing it happen count, Eoin?
ah now be fair
I do that meself
You have a PA too, Frills?
Ah stop
Tis all I can do to make sure the phone is charged
Shameless Plug Alert
I might as well get a plug in
Should anyone from Aer Lingus or their PR be about like
I’m togging in myself for that JFK flight tomorrow
So Aer Lingus
Should there be availability
This former Celebrity Accountant
Wouldn’t mind an upgrade
Aer Lingus will be my user name for the next month
If ye like
Thank you in advance Aer Lingus
And I’ll make extra sure not to take the p155 with hand luggage
See you tomorrow Aer Lingus
Fine Gael – the party of fraudulent claims, bribery, lies and bullpoo.
Wheres Leo with a big red banner saying ‘FG cheats cheat us all’.
Won’t see because only poor people commit crimes in Leo’s world.
Interesting one, kinda similar.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-orders-taxi-drivers-injury-claim-that-misled-solicitors-and-wasted-court-time-be-considered-for-prosecution-38342279.html