The Gazette 1984

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE Vol. 78 No. 2

March 1984

Comment . . .

In this issue . . . Comment European Communities (Units of Measurement Regulations) 1983 Solicitors' Accounts Regulations/Approved Banks Preparation of Briefs in Personal Injury Actions Fraud — Duties of Liquidators and their Solicitors Practice Notes

35

. . . A Court of Appeal? W HILE increasing attention is being given to the lengthening Court Lists in the High Court and certain Circuit Courts and District Courts, the fact that this overload of cases has not passed the Supreme Court by appears to have been ignored. It is a natural corollary to the increase in the number of Judges hearing cases in the High Court and to the number of cases being tried in the High Court that there should be an increase in the number of appeals brought to the Supreme Court. On the 23rd January, the Legal Diary contained a list of 54 cases for hearing in the Supreme Court. It must be assumed that their inclusion in such a list indicated that they were cases which the Supreme Court had a reasonable hope of reaching in the Hilary Term. Even in this particularly long Hilary Term, this would predicate a turnover of cases not far short of one per day and, of course, does not allow for any urgent matters which may have to be dealt with by the Court. As there is only one Court Room available for the Court and it cannot sit in less than Chambers of three, it is clear that the amount of time which the Judges must actually devote to the hearing of the cases must, in many cases, only leave them with their supposed leisure time to deal with the preliminary reading or consideration of their judgments. It has to be said, albeit it with some temerity, that the Supreme Court, in manfully undertaking this heavy workload, copes with it sometimes to the detriment of the quality of its jurisprudence. It may be necessary for the Judges, in order to deliver their judgments with reasonable celerity, to lean more towards doing justice between the parties and applying the law in the individual case before them than in drawing together the threads of lines of authority which have been quoted to them. In the face of the fact that our Judges, unlike their counterparts in many other jurisdictions, have no legal assistants to do the donkey work of checking case references and must necessarily do all their own research, it is perhaps not surprising that from time to time judgments which have been promptly delivered, to the satisfaction of at least one of the litigating parties, may not always stand up to detailed analysis in the absence of clear indications from the Judges as to which particular lines of authority have or have not been followed in any individual case. Is it not right to consider whether there should necessarily be an automatic right of appeal from all cases originating in the High Court to the Supreme Court? Is there not something to be said for interposing a Court of Appeal between the High Court and the Supreme Court in civil cases, as has already been done for criminal cases? Is there not a strong argument for restrictine access to the (continued on p. 47) 35

37

41

43

45

47

IBA Vienna Conference

47

Presentation of Parchments

51

Journalism Prize

53

Association Internationale des Jeunes Avocats

53

New Work on Construction Insurance

54

Legal Services in the USA

55

Correspondence

59

Professional Information

62

Executive Editor: Mary Buckley Editorial Board:

Charles R. M. Meredith, Chairman John F. Buckley Gary Byrne William Earley Michael V. O'Mahony Maxwell Sweeney Liam O hOisin, Telephone 305236

Advertising:

Printing: Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford The views expressed in this publication, save where other-wise indicated, are the views of the contributors and not necessarily the views of the Council of the Society. The appearance of an advertisement in this publication does not necessarily indicate approval by the Society for the product or service advertised. Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.