The Gazette 1987

GAZETTE

LY/AUGUST

1987

this

Issue

Viewpoint 143

Licensed Premises

for sale

145

Practice Note

1 53

Jurisdiction of Courts

and Enforcement of

Judgements (European

Communities) Bill

1 57

Solicitors

Golfing Society

159

An Accident

Compensation Act

161

Professional Information

169

•

Executive Editor:

Mary Buckiey

Editorial Board:

Charles R. M. Meredith, Chairman

John F. Buckley

Gary Byrne

Daire Murphy

Michael V. O'Mahony

Maxwell Sweeney

Advertising:

Sean 0 hOisin. Telephone: 305236

307860

Printing:

Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford.

The views expressed in this publication,

save where otherwise 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.

Tel.: 710711,

Telex: 31219.

Fax: 710704

A A ^ p T T

INCORPORATE

I L

LA WSOCIETY

h H / r

I I r

ofm

U a k a

m m

Vol. 81 No. 5 June 1987

Viewpoint

The Minister for Justice's recent

statement in reply to a Dail ques-

tion that he had no plans at present

to set up new Courts to hear civil

appeals from the High Court is a

disappointment. Not only is it an in-

dication that no immediate change

may be expected, but there was a

clear implication that until a formal

proposal was made to the Minister

the matter would not be considered.

It might have been expected that

the Department of Justice, who

have full knowledge of the serious

overloading of the Courts' case-

load, would already have had the

matter under consideration. The

Minister acknowledged that he

was aware that the Chief Justice

had recently raised the issue for

debate. This was in the Cearbhall

O'Dalaigh lecture in 1986, when

Mr. Justice Finlay put forward

strong arguments for the introduc-

tion of an intermediate Court of

Appeals on the civil side.

The need for some alleviation of

the burden of the Supreme Court

Judges is manifest once the increase

in their caseload is measured. In

the legal year 1964/65, excluding

interlocutory motions, 121 appeals

were entered for hearing before the

Supreme Court. In the legal year

1985/86 the comparable figure

was 358. The figures for the cur-

rent year show a continuation of

this trend. A recent Legal Diary

listed 109 cases as being ready for

hearing by the Court.

With the High Court having

under the Constitution primary

jurisdiction in all areas there was,

in the absence of any intermediate

court on the civil side, no alter-

native but to have the Supreme

Court hear appeals from the High

Court. Litigants who brought (and,

indeed, in most cases were obliged

to bring) their actions in the High

Court could hardly be deprived of

their right of appeal.

It also has to be said, with due

temerity, that the heavy caseload

might lead to a decline in the

jurisprudence of the Court. An

appeallant court may well be able

to do justice between the parties,

deal satisfactorily with the argu-

ments put before it by their advo-

cates and yet produce a Judge-

ment which may not be of great

assistance to future litigants and

their legal advisors. It may not

always be apparent how the Court

has resolved apparent conflict bet-

ween previously decided cases,

dealt with particular arguments, or

even whether certain lines of argu-

ment were put to the Court. A final

Court of Appeal should have suffi-

cient time available to it to enable

it to produce Judgements which

will not only deal with the issues in

the case but contribute further to

the Court's jurisprudence.

There are no easy cases in the

Supreme Court, none that do not

require the study of transcripts of

evidence, many that require the

reading of substantial volumes of

materials which have been put in

evidence in the High Court and

some where the amount of

material to be considered by the

Court following some lengthy and

complex action is mind-boggling.

The introduction of a multi-

Judge Court of Appeal should

enable the overload on the

Supreme Court to be reduced

whilst still providing the litigant

with an appeal to a different Court.

This system has operated satisfac-

torily on the criminal side for over

sixty years. It should now be in-

troduced as a matter of urgency on

the civil side.

•

143