The Gazette 1994

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1994

L A W B R I E

Dr. Eamonn G. Hall

1993)' which came into operation on December 8, 1993 provide an alternative method of commencing and dealing with a civil proceeding in respect of a small claim to be known as the small claims procedure. The rules regulate the practice and procedure of the District Court in relation to the small claims procedure [ and prescribe the forms to be used in connection with such claims. Under the rules a small claim is defined as meaning a civil proceeding instituted under the 1993 Rules: "(1) in relation to a consumer contract, by the consumer against the vendor in respect of any goods or service purchased, which is not a claim:- (b) arising from an alleged breach of a leasing agreement, (2) in relation to a tort, by the claimant J (not being a body corporate) j against the respondent in respect of minor damage caused to property belonging to the claimant (but excluding personal injuries), (3) in relation to a tenancy, by the j tenant (not being a body corporate) against the landlord in respect of j the non-return of any sum paid by the tenant as rent deposit or any such sum known as "key money", provided that in every such case the amount of the claim does not exceed the sum of £500.00." The 1993 Rules which facilitate the extension of the small claims procedure to all District Court areas replace the District Court (Small Claims Procedure) Rules, 1991 (S.I. No. 310 of 1991) and the District Court (Small Claims Procedure) Rules, 1992 (S.I. No. 119 of 1992) (a) arising from an agreement under the Hire Purchase Acts, 1946 and 1960, or

negligence, wrongfully convicted of shoplifting and her mental anguish was increased by what she perceived the parishioners though of her, the judge could not see why that would not enhance her award. If a vicar's wife, was, through her solicitor's negligence, wrongly convicted of shoplifting and her mental anguish was increased by what she perceived the parishioners thought of her, this should enhance her award of damages. The court considered that the period of mental distress ran from the commence- ment of the trial, when it first became apparent that the solicitors were not de- fending the plaintiff properly, until the day the conviction had been set aside. In fixing the amount of the award, Scott Baker J had in mind in particular; (i) the nature of the offences of which the plaintiff had been convicted and the penalty imposed; (ii) the length of time the conviction had stood and (iii) the particular effect on the plaintiff. The judge stated that he had to do his best to put into terms of money something that could not really be truly quantified in financial terms. His Lordship regarded awards in libel cases as irrelevant. The court considered the appropriate figure for general damages was £6,000.00. The clearest Irish authority in this area is Roche -v- Peilow, (unreported) July 8, 1986 where Carroll J in the High Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court, awarded damages for mental distress to the plaintiff husband and wife. See Dr. White's Irish Law of Damages, p.254.

Solicitors Liable for Mental Distress

In awarding damages to a plaintiff wrongly convicted of a criminal offence due to his solicitor's negligence, Scott Baker J held in McLeish v Amoo- Gottfried & Co (Queen's Bench Division), ( The Times, October 13, 1993) that a court could take into account any loss of reputation which had increased the plaintiffs mental distress. Solicitors had acted for the plaintiff in criminal proceedings which had resulted in his conviction in September 1989 on two counts of common assault on a police officer and one count of possessing an offensive weapon. The plaintiff was fined £450. In November 1991 the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, quashed all the convictions. The solicitors admitted they had acted negligently in the conduct of the plaintiff's defence and the matter came before the court for the assessment of damages. Scott Baker J stated that the plaintiff had claimed general damages under two heads, albeit accepting that one global award should be made. Those heads were: (i) distress and mental anxiety; (ii) injury to reputation. In the context of the distress and mental anxiety, the very essence of the contract to act for the plaintiff in preparation for and at his trial had been, according to Scott Baker J, to ensure his peace of mind by taking all appropriate steps to secure his acquittal if possible and, if not, to make the best possible case for him. The judge had no doubt that it was foreseeable that the plaintiff would suffer mental distress if the solicitors conducted the preparation and trial negligently. In the context of injury to reputation, the judge noted that if a vicar's wife w as, through her solicitor's

District Court - Small Claims Procedure

The District Court (Small Claims Procedure) Rules 1993 (S.I. 356 of

11