Mr. Cian O'Carroll:

-----picking through documents. In regard to the point that she makes about the HSE, there were two defendants in the case. There was a negotiation. There was one fundamental that my wonderful client had set from day 1, which was that there could never be a confidentiality clause. Eventually, when that was surrendered by the defendant - I thought it was the defendants, until we found out later it was just the laboratory - then a negotiation began. That was after three days in the High Court. It was six days after the case had started. The focus then was on the terms of settlement. As part of that, the HSE was to be let out of the case. There was nothing, apparently, to be lost or gained from doing that. I almost feel I am confessing and apologising to Ms Phelan. Maybe in hindsight, if we were to go back now, knowing what we know and what has happened, it would be tidier to keep the HSE in it. The HSE admitted in their defence to a breach of duty in a partial delay of informing Ms Phelan in 15 months of what had happened, which is extraordinary. A party has been let out of proceedings, and yet it makes an apology, publicly, for the actual liability issue that the proceedings were about. I do not think I have ever seen that before. In that sense, the HSE was not let out. It was let out, but it ultimately had to apologise to Ms Phelan.