The Gazette 1984

GAZETTE

APRIL. 1984

Correspondence

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the Registrar to have the case withdrawn on the basis of a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have the case withdrawn by Consent from the List of cases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

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.

19th January, 1984

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