1. It was (arguably) beyond the remit of the High Court inspector to make exhaustive comment on the giving of legal advice to Mr. Jim Flavin (“Flavin”) on the legality of the sale by Flavin of Fyffes’ shares. 2. However, the advice was wrong, the inspector says. (He could hardly say anything else, given that the Supreme Court effectively said the same thing). 3. Consequently, the question as to whether the solicitor who gave that advice was negligent could arise. […]
From an evidential point of view this is equivalent to looking at the murder weapon in a criminal trial, or looking at a large machine which cannot be brought to court with convenience.
Here in Ireland, if there were to be a reprise of that struggle we can not be sure that the courts’ response might not be equally inadequate.
The inspector found that, Mr. Jim Flavin, having received legal advice, broke the law as to insider dealing, but, in the light of the advice, did so inadvertently.
It is an obligation of an advocate, in cross-examination, to convey to the witness the evidence the advocate intends to adduce to rebut the evidence of the witness. This is called “putting” the case to the witness. The witness will have the presumed opportunity to comment on the “case” of the advocate’s witnesses.
Few people know the source or sources of the ideas they use to prop up their speech, not to speak of their lives. To take everything they might say as defining them perfectly is just wrong.
The essential element of the book, in explaining its success, was prolixity. A work is prolix if it is too long. It is a general human failing to think that there must be substance to something if it can be written about at length.
This blog is settled in the view that the current fashion of requiring minimal discovery of records/documentation in the course of litigation is mistaken.
Hearsay evidence is evidence of what some person, other than the witness, has said (on some other occasion), where the purpose of recounting what was said is to establish the truth of what was said (as opposed to the fact that it was said).