THE judge hearing the lengthy High Court action over the Bula ore body said yesterday that he still had not been given the issues which he had to decide, even though it has been in progress for about 200 days.
Mr Justice Lynch made his remarks following exchanges in court over the way the case, which began in late 1993,15 proceeding.
There was also criticism in court yesterday by counsel for the State of one of the plaintiffs, Mr Michael Wymes. Counsel for Mr Wymes said he was astonished to hear it.
In his comments the judge stated. "It must surely be unheard of in the courts of this State since its foundation that the judge hearing a case, now, for in or about 200 days, should not yet have been told, in unequivocal terms, whether or not certain matters remain in issue between the parties."
He told Bula's lawyers he had not been given the issues. That was why he had been protesting.
The action has been taken by Bula Ltd, in receivership Mr Michael Wymes and Mr Richard Wood over the failure of the Bula mine at Nevinstown, Co Meath to come into operation. They are suing Tara Mines Ltd Tara's Finnish owners, Outokumpu Oy and 14 other defendants, including the Minister for Energy.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Lynch said the plaintiffs had brought the action, started by the issue of a plenary summons in November 1986, "that is to say, nine and a half years ago".
He added that once again yesterday the plaintiffs were unable to proceed because they did not have available any witness that they should have or on stand by. Counsel for the Tara defendants and counsel for the State had protested and with good reason.
Mr Justice Lynch, adjourning the case until next week, said a witness had been asked to come from London and apparently all arrangements had been made.
He would allow that witness to be called and give evidence as arranged, even though he (judge) was conscious of the disadvantage to the defendants if that witness was to give evidence relating to matters which the plaintiffs had not yet decided remained in issue or not.
When that witness had given evidence he would adjourn the hearing for two sitting days. When he sat again he would require the plaintiffs to state precisely what matters remained in issue for him to determine, including issues as to damages.
"Thereafter, the evidence must resume and the case run to its conclusion without interruptions", said Mr Justice Lynch. "I trust these rulings are clear and will be obeyed."
Earlier yesterday, Mr Thomas Smyth SC, for the State, referred to Mr Wymes. He said. "This case has been conducted when Mr Wymes was in the witness box from the witness box and since he got out from the back of the court."
He added that he did not criticise counsel, who had difficulties. Everyone had to deal with these things, as best they could. But once the case was in court it was in the hands of counsel to conduct not to have it dictated by a plaintiff.
Mr Smyth said they had arrived at a stage where it seemed clear from some of the plaintiff's witnesses that "this is very much like a situation where some of the issues, if I can so describe them, like tricks in a game of cards, have been lost but that the gambler now wishes to kick down the table and make as much disruption in the casino, if I so describe the court that way, as possible."
Mr Paul Callan SC, for the plaintiffs, said there had been a personal attack, a vilification, of Mr Wymes. It was something that should never have happened. He was astonished and stagered.
He said there had been an appalling diatribe in relation to his client. There had been a continuation into an irreverent criticism of other matters which were totally outside the ken of the case which, if there were a jury, might have irrevocably damaged their ability to see the case as it ought to be seen, the justice to be done and, in particular, justice to be seen to be done.
Mr Justice Lynch asked if counsel was asking the judge to discharge himself. Mr Callan said he was not.