More from de judge ....
Hot from the press .... Mr. Justice Smyth has spoken again. The record of the hearing on costs in the REPA case has been published (this was a week later than the verdict). I have cut and pasted some that may make some readers here smile. Here is Mr. Justice Smyth on various subjects:
On Ryanair’s “lack of candour”:
"Where internally on the Plaintiff's team the lack of frankness arose is irrelevant for present purposes, there has been a failure of candour with the Court. The fact is that there were consequences of the lack of frankness with the Court, which was moved to make the order, and an onerous order, for discovery and the Defendants were put to an undue and unfair trouble and expense, and I cannot, with equanimity, express other than disapproval of such conduct.
It is, I regret to note, all of apiece with the approach of the Plaintiff towards the Defendants and others to whom I have referred in my judgment. The Plaintiff's conduct of the litigation as a whole, and discovery in particular, was unreasonable, and in its prosecution oppressive."
On Ryanair's “unreasonableness”:
In my judgment, there was unreasonableness of a high degree by the Plaintiff, and I do not consider it merely to have been wrong in hindsight. In the instant case, the Defendants made a real effort to find a reasonable solution to the contested facts that led them to the formulation of a case by referring same to the Labour Relations Commission. The invitation was not merely refused; it was rejected.
On his duties as a trial judge:
I am mindful of my animadversions as a trial judge and the necessity to be temperate in language. On the other hand there are occasions, of which this is regretfully I think the second in my career as a judge I have had to do so, to say things that I found extremely difficult but which could not be left unsaid. There are times when one must say out boldly and without equivocation matters that cannot be pleasant for the hearer or recipient of the expression of view or a finding of fact or an inference drawn from the findings of fact.
On the “investigation” of Captain John Goss:
It seems to me that the questions on the evidence before me, there was no basis for the Goss investigation ….
On Ryanair’s attitude to Discovery:
The disparity between what was sworn to for discovery purposes and what was sworn in court was a serious matter. It went to the essential relief being sought by the Plaintiff. Someone had clearly forgotten Cordelia's reflection in King Lear, Act 1, Scene 1:
"Time shall unfold what pleated cunning hides;
Who cover faults, at last shame them derides."
On his judgment re costs:
In my judgment and without any sense of doubt, although perhaps the human being should always have some doubt, but to the extent that I can be as certain as a judge can be, I have no doubt that this is a case in which solicitor-and-own-client costs should be awarded to the Defendants.
Now, I am quite conscious that it is a serious order to make. It was intimated, as I say, to me earlier on that this would be done almost immediately the case was over. I have had to think about it. I have to re-read sections of the transcript again. I have very carefully considered every submission that was made. I read them all. I read all the authorities in full. Nonetheless, I have come to this conclusion, and it is a firm and unequivocal conclusion. That will be my order, and this would include the costs up to today's date.
All I can say is .... Whot a Judge!!