The Gazette 1984

GAZETTE

APRIL. 1984

Correspondence

my colleagues have experienced to their loss, the presence of these so called Consultants. Our potential clients are being lured by these Consultants with a catch call "no costs whatsoever, we will look after everything — You have a great case here". Yes, we have here in Dublin City, all the way from American soap opera, the old reliable fast talking ambulance chaser. This new benevolent breed of competitor — not charging fees — not requiring retainers, and ensuring that liability is not an issue and that compensation will be made available at the earliest possible date. Delays and red tape, the alleged concomitants of tangling with the legal fraternity are now things of the past. I learned at first hand recently of the modus operandi of these Consultants. I was travelling on the Santry by-pass, north bound when I collided with a lady who was south bound but to the detriment of both of us she had chosen my side of the dual carriage way, thus colliding head-on with my car. Having first pulled myself from the mangled remains of my motor car to the green verge in the middle of the road I was first met by a good Samaritan who bid me sit down and relax. But, alas, not for long was I to enjoy her words of consolation and the gentle tending to my wounds. The relative solitude was cruelly interrupted by the very immediate presence of the Ambulance Chaser, (only this time he had beaten the ambulance) who promptly squeezed his business card into my shaking hand, uttering in my ear his opinion, both on quantum and liability. He assured me that there would be no delays in obtaining compensation and no cost whatever to myself. Recently, I was speaking to a colleague who told me that clients of his were approached at their house by a representative of a firm of Consultants of similar mould, the day following an accident involving their infant daughter. Some few weeks later the clients having spoken with my colleague requested the papers from the Consultants and they were told that their fees must be discharged in advance of handing over the file. It appears from similar reports from other friends that there is a number of these firms now in existence in the City. The attention of the profession at large should be directed to the need for warning the public of the dangers inherent in dealing with these new intrusions on the legal scene. Yours sincerely, Finnian G. Doyle, Solicitor, 28 Annamoe Terrace, Cabra, Dublin 7. Dear Sir, I refer to the letter from Mr. John Carroll, Managing Director of the Housing Finance Agency, in your December issue. Two aspects to the machinery for obtaining a Housing Finance Agency Loan seem to be causing delay, and they are as follows:— 1. It appears that some, if not all, Local Authorities require the Mortgage Deed to be executed before the cheque will even be bespoken from the Housing Finance Agency and it is not certain whether this is a requirement of the Agency or of the Local 59 19th January, 1984

16th February, 1984

Dear Sir, I recently experienced some difficulty in relation to the discontinuance of a High Court Jury action which may be of interest to other practitioners and which suggests that an amendment to Order 26 Rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts would be desirable. The position in my particular case where I acted for the Plaintiff was that the Reply had been filed and served but the case was settled prior to service of Notice of Trial. After the settlement terms had been implemented, I wished to have the Action discontinued. Because the Reply had been filed, I was unable to file a simple Notice of Discontinuance. Equally, because Notice of Trial had not been served, I could not apply to the Registrar to have the case withdrawn on the basis of a letter of Consent from the Defendants' Solicitors. I took the matter up with the Central Office and was correctly informed that the Action could not be discontinued without leave of the Court due to the provisions of Order 26 Rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, which basically state that an action cannot be discontinued after the Reply has been filed and before service of Notice of Trial without leave of the Court. Consequently, I had no alternative but to instruct Counsel to make the necessary Application to the Court. Naturally, I could have simply proceeded to serve Notice of Trial even though the case was settled, and then have the case withdrawn by Consent from the List of cases set down. However, I did not wish to incur the cost and work of doing so when it was totally unnecessary. Alternatively, I could have taken no steps whatsoever towards having the action discontinued and left the action in a "limbo" situation but that would not have been fair to the Officials of the Central Office who are constantly trying to improve the position of the High Court list. It would appear to me that there is a strong case to be made for an amendment to Order 26 Rule 1 so as to allow for either the discontinuance or withdrawal of an action by consent even after the Reply has been filed without the necessity of making Application to the Court. Indeed, the Official in the Central Office with whom I was dealing agreed that such an amendment would greatly facilitate both the officials in the Central Office and the practi- tioners alike. Accordingly, I would suggest that the matter be taken up by the appropriate Committee of the Law Society and hopefully a provision of the Superior Court Rules which appears to have become an inconvenience to both practitioners and officials in the Central Office, will be suitably amended. Yours faithfully, Paul V. Kelly, Solicitor,

John V. Kelly & Co., Church St., Cavan.

12th February, 1984

A Chara,

re/ Accident Claims Consultants I wish to bring to the attention of the profession, particularly those involved in litigation, the presence, in Dublin at any rate, of "Claims Consultants". Several of