I think there are always two sides to these things. I'm always suspicious when one party releases confidential correspondence like this. Why did Paddy feel the need to release these - what benefit is there in doing so? Would it not have been much better to keep working on resolving these differences internally without publishing these emails (which on the face of it are very one sided in what they portray). The emails don't necessarily paint Paddy in the best light either (for example email 1 is Friday night and by Monday night he's back on demanding a response!). Maybe it was exasperation on his part at the end of 2 years of trying but I'm not sure it was handled in best way on either side.
Certainly it looks like the government handling was poor here (and it looks like it was a case of too many chiefs with no one ultimately having responsibility) but I think it reflects equally badly on the Web Summit organisers that they're airing their dirty laundry in public like this, it shows a certain immaturity on their behalf. One thing is for sure, it doesn't help future discussions when one side behaves like this.