A planned meeting between Supreme Court judge Seamus Woulfe and the Chief Justice, Frank Clarke, to discuss the Denham review into his attendance at a golf event in August has been delayed until next week.

A statement issued on behalf of the Chief Justice said the meeting had been postponed until Friday, but he has now received a request from Mr Justice Woulfe for a further postponement on medical grounds. 

The meeting will now take place next Tuesday. The statement said the Chief Justice had emphasised to Mr Justice Woulfe the urgency of bringing this process forward.

It comes after three senior judges met Mr Justice Woulfe on Friday, to discuss the way issues surrounding his attendance at the Oireachtas Golf Society dinner in August could be resolved.

The meeting is not understood to have gone well, and sources say Judge Woulfe was "shocked" by what they had to say about the proposed method of "informal resolution".

There is increasing concern in legal circles about the ongoing controversy. 

A review by former chief justice Susan Denham found it would be unjust and disproportionate to call for Mr Justice Woulfe's resignation over the matter.

However, she found he had not been vigilant enough in considering whether his attendance at the dinner in a Clifden hotel during a pandemic would be an impropriety or give the appearance of such.

She recommended that Chief Justice Frank Clarke could consider resolving the matter informally.

The entire transcript of Judge Woulfe's first interview with Ms Justice Denham was released by the judicial council on Friday afternoon.

Reaction to it has not been favourable, with legal sources suggesting it showed Judge Woulfe "did not get" the reasons for the public anger about the event.

In the transcript, the judge also discussed others, including the Chief Justice, the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and current Attorney General, something that has not gone down well among lawyers or politicians.

He also suggested some of his judicial colleagues may have joined the media and politicians in prejudging him.

There are understood to be very strong feelings in the judiciary about the way Judge Woulfe chose to deal with the matter.

On Friday, three senior judges are understood to have met Judge Woulfe to discuss the proposed informal resolution process, recommended by Ms Justice Denham.

Legal sources say "it did not go well" and he was "shocked" by the depth of feeling and the form the process was expected to take.

Some legal commentators believe Mr Justice Woulfe would be entitled at this stage to tell the Supreme Court he has co-operated with the non-statutory inquiry set up by them and has been vindicated by it.

It is difficult to see how he could be persuaded or legally forced to enter into a resolution process that has no firm legal basis.

University of Limerick law lecturer Dr Laura Cahillane said the episode demonstrated the dangers in failing to implement important reform such as the Judicial Council for so long.

If there had been a formal system, she said, the process might have been fairer and more satisfactory. She said lessons could be learned in the context of the reform of judicial appointments.

The longer this particular stand-off continues though, the more damaging it could become, especially for the Supreme Court itself and for the administration of justice.