44 / 406
GAZETTE
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1985
However our principal objection to the scheme as it is
operating is to its excessive cost and it is disappointing to see
that the cost per case appears to be increasing rather than
decreasing as the scheme goes on. It might have been
expected that in view of the decline in the percentage of
cases dealt with by the Scheme where representation in
Court was given from 32% to 22% that there might have
been a decline in the cost per case. Unfortunately this is not
the position. The 5,332 cases dealt with in 1982 cost an
average of £229 each whereas the 4,999 cases dealt with in
1981 cost £182 each. Such an increase seems to justify the
contention made in our earlier letter that the costs of
administration of the Scheme are out of proportion to the
benefits provided by it and that the recommendations of the
Pringle Committee bear further consideration.
•
Mr. J. L. Dundon
December 1984
Chairman,
EEC and International Affairs Committee,
The Law Society,
Blackhall Place,
Dublin 7.
Re: Admiralty Law — Limitation of Liability
Dear Mr. Dundon,
Mr. Jim Mitchell, T.D., Minister for Communications,
has asked me to reply to your letter of 2 July, 1984 in
which you inquired, on behalf of the Law Society, as to
the position regarding ratification of the Convention on
Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976.
The Minister has asked me to explain that the Depart-
ment has been considering the introduction of new
legislation in this area for some time. The Department,
however, was reluctant to press forward with ratification
of the 1976 Convention which did not appear to be
garnering much support internationally. You will
appreciate that domestic legislation enabling ratification
would have to remain on ice until such time as the
Convention itself came into force. Until recently the slow
pace of ratification suggested that the new Convention
would remain dormant for some time to come.
The prospects for the entry into force of the 1976
Convention have, however, been greatly enhanced as a
result of the ratifications by the four Scandinavian
countries in May, 1984. Consequently, only one more
ratification is required in order to bring the Convention
into force internationally. In light of this development the
Minister has asked me to say that this Department is now
assessing the legislative requirements which ratification
of the 1976 Convention will entail, with a view to
proceeding to ratification as soon as possible.
It is regretted that a considerable delay has occurred in
replying to your letter. This is due to oversight arising
from heavy pressure of work in the Marine Division of the
Department in recent months.
Yours sincerely,
Richard C. Dunne,
Private Secretary.
Dept. of Communications,
Dublin 2.
Mr. Jim Mitchell, T.D.,
2 July, 1984
Minister for Communications,
Kildare Street,
Dublin 2.
Re: Admiralty Law — Limitation of Liability
Dear Minister,
I write at the request of the Council of the Incorporated
Law Society of Ireland who are concerned at the present
undesirable position in relation to the limitation of
liability both in this Country and for Irish Shipowners
abroad.
Maritime or Admiralty law in Ireland has been from its
inception very similar to the British maritime law upon
which most sytems of maritime law are based. The
principle of the right of a Shipowner to limit his liability in
certain circumstances has been accepted for centuries.
The principle was incorporated in Section 503 of the
Merchant Shipping Act 1894 which applied both to Great
Britain and Ireland.
In Great Britain it has been amended on a number of
occasions up to and including the Merchant Shipping
(Liability of Ship Owners and Others) Act 1958 which
gave effect to the International Convention Relating to
the Limitation of Liability of Owners of Seagoing Ships
1957 (the Limitation of Liability Convention 1957). In
Ireland during the intervening 90 years no amendment
has been made to the Section which, on the face of it,
continues to apply in Ireland notwithstanding vastly
changed circumstances and value for money.
In addition, there are very strong arguments which the
Society feel might well be accepted of the point were
argued before it by the High Court, or by the Supreme
Court, to the effect that Section 503 does not apply in
Ireland because of the particular wording of the Section
and the provisions of the Mercantile Marine Act 1955;
that the Section conflicts with the provisions of Articles
40.1 and 40.3 of the Irish Constitution and is accordingly
unconstitutional, and, finally, that the provisions of the
Section, if they continue to apply, are in conflict with the
provisions of the Treaty of Rome, at least in so far as
concerns Shipowners of an E.E.C. Nationality.
Nothwithstanding that the Limitation of Liability
Convention 1957 has been in force for a number of years,
Ireland does not appear to have taken any step towards
acceding to it or ratifying it.
Over the years other nations have found that the
Limitation of Liability Convention 1957 contains certain
anomolies and lacunae. The Limitation of Liability
Convention of 1976 which cures them seems likely to
come into force shortly.
Three of the benefits which would be obtained by Irish
accession and ratification are—
1. Certainty instead of uncertainty as to whether it is
possible for a Shipowner under Irish martime law to
limit his liability;
2. Those against whose claims liability may be capable
of limitation at the moment on the basis of Section
503 would have a reasonable rather than an
unreasonable limitation of liability to contend with;
and
3. For Irish Shipowners and their Insurers would be
the ability to limit liability in a claim being
33