101 / 144
JUNE, 1932]
The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
I refer to the procedure by which judgment
in default of appearance can be entered in
the office of the County Registrar in cases of
liquidated demands. This provision was one
much
in
the interest of
the commercial
community, as it afforded an expeditious
and inexpensive mode of procuring judgment
for trade debts. The Rules were but a short
time in force when it was rumoured that the
Rule authorising this procedure was
ultra
vires.
So persistent did
these
rumours
become that the Council submitted a case to
Senior Counsel, who advised that there was
grave doubt as to the validity of the Rule.
I apprbached the Minister for Justice with a
view of putting the matter on a satisfactory
basis, but having regard to the recent con–
firmation of the Rules by the Oircachtas,
coupled by the fact that there has been no
judicial decision on the validity of the Rule,
the Minister did not consider that he was
called on to take any step.
The difficulty underlying the matter is one
arising on the interpretation of Article 64 of
the Constitution, by which it is declared that
the judicial power of the Irish Free State
shall be exercised and justice, administered in
the Public Courts by Judges appointed by
the representative of the Crown on the advice
of the Executive Council.
Questions of great importance have arisen
as to whether the exercise of what is con–
tended in many quarters to be judicial power
by Special Commissioners of Income Tax, the
Land Commission, County Registrars and
other officers carrying out administrative
functions is
ultra vires
the Constitution and
illegal. No judicial pronouncement has so
far been made on this far-reaching topic, and
the Council has come to the conclusion that
until the basic difficulty is cleared up by a
decision of the Supreme Court, nothing can
"be done to settle the question of the power
of County Registrars to enter judgments by
default.
In the meantime the Council has
thought it well to draw the attention of the
profession to the possible illegality of the
procedure.
On the subject of expeditious recovery of
trade debts it is admitted on all sides that
the District Courts have given entire satisfac–
tion. The procedure is simple, quick and
inexpensive, and it may be worthy of the
consideration of the profession whether it
would not be beneficial to the commercial
community if the jurisdiction of District
Justices was increased to £50
in simple
contract debts. This would cover the vast
majority of debts sued for by traders.
Circuit Court Appeals.
In reference to appeals from Circuit Courts,
general dissatisfaction has been expressed by
the profession at the present mode of dealing
with these appeals.
In the past enormous
arrears ran up and, as you will remember,
Special Commissioners had to be appointed
to deal with these arrears.
It will'interest
you to know the present position of pending
appeals. There were on the 1st of January
last 209 appeals unheard.
Since then 80
notices of appeal have been lodged, and at
the moment there are 90 undisposed of. That
shows a considerable speeding up ;
but,
nevertheless, I feel that the profession as a
whole regard the hearing of these appeals on
notes to be unsatisfactory. The Joint Com–
mittee of the Houses reported in favour of
appeals by way of re-hearing to be heard
locally in convenient centres twice a year,
and emphasised the general dissatisfaction
with the present mode of appeal expressed
by the great majority of the witnesses who
!
gave evidence before the Committee.
It is hoped when the Government introduce
the promised legislation to implement the
Report of the Joint Committee that this
i
recommendation shall be given effect to.
Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931.
The only recent Act which calls for any
remarks is the Landlord and Tenant Act,
1931, which introduces a number of com–
plicated provisions to regulate as regards
houses the future relations of landlord and
tenant.
By Section 5, Sub-Section (3) the Rule
Making Authority is the Minister for Justice,
and
that provision practically overrides
Section 65 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924.
Every Court heretofore has been allowed to
adopt its own procedure, and
this new
method of allowing procedure to be dictated
by the Minister for Justice which as we all
know really means the permanent officials of
the Ministry is objectionable. Prescribed