The Gazette 1983

63 / 346

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE
Vol. 77. No. 3 April 1983
In this issue. ..
^ Witnessing and Attestation
Exempted Development ^
Book Reviews 69
73
For Your Diary
AGM o f T he Solicitors'Benevolent Association 75
A.I.J.A 75
77
Correspondence
78
Professional Information
Executive Editor: Mary Buckley
Editorial Board: Charles R. M. Meredith, Chairman
John F. Buckley
Gary Byrne
William Earley
Michael V. O'Mahony
Maxwell Sweeney
Advertising: Liam Ó hOisin, Telephone 305236
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 tor
the product or service advertised.
Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.
Comment . ..
. . . the Cost of Motor Insurance
THE recent report of the Enquiry into the cost and
methods of providing Motor Insurance 1982* is to be
welcomed. One should always welcome such reports
particularly those that show a high level of competence
and expertise in their preparation and presentation.
Solicitors will be particularly interested in the observa-
tions and recommendations on legal delays, legal costs
andjury assessments. Legal delays are most notable in the
Dublin High Court jury list, w*here the delays from setting
down to actual listing for hearing are now at least two
years. On the reason for the delays, the Report quotes the
Bar Council submissions —
"the insufficient number of Judges available to hear
cases in the High Court, the insufficient number of
courthouses available for hearing jury trials in the High
Court and the inadequacy of facilities available in the
existing courthouses and the inadequacy of staff to
service the courts generally."
The Court emphasises the severe personal hardship to
plaintiff litigants by such delays and at the same time the
complaint of insurance companies that such delays
ultimately result in far higher Court awards than would
have been made two years before.
On the vexed and difficult question of jury assessments
they account for about 16% of the total cost of settling
claims. The imposition of 23% V.A.T. on solicitors' and
barristers' fees will certainly not reduce that percentage.
The principal factor affecting the size of such legal costs is
the number of cases where legal proceedings are
commenced and go all the way to the door of the court. Two
diverse points of view are reflected in the Report for this
phenomenon — the one that it is because insurance
companies do not reasonably and realistically attempt to
settle cases early, the other that plaintiffs seek to extend
the maximum possible amount of compensation, whether
justified or not.
On the vexed and difficult question of jury assessment
of damages the Report recommends no change in the
system of jury trial other than that in a High Court hearing
for damages for injuries, the trial judge should be permitted
to inform the jury as to what he estimates to be the going
rate of general damages for the sort of injuries proved in the
circumstances of the particular case. This is a common
sense suggestion, far better than cliches in judges' charges
such as that the jury "must be fair and reasonable and just
to both parties". Would such a change still, however,
result in uncertainty and inconsistency in that the "going
rate" of general damages for a "plaintiffs" judge might
(Continued on P. 68)
55