264 / 364
tioned and the damages may be reduced. There
fore it seems that under German law, and it is
thought
that
the same
legal principle applies
throughout continental Europe, the difference be
tween our law and the continental law is largely
onus of proof. The acceptance of the principle of
strict liability means that there is no onus of proof
on the plaintiff as to the cause of the accident
even in the absence of witnesses or failure of proof
on the part of the plaintiff due to, e.g. amnesia;
the principle of strict liability means that the
owner of the vehicle is legally responsible for the
accident. Evidence may be called on the question
of apportionment of blame but as the onus rests
upon the defendants or owners of
the vehicle
it seems that he will be responsible for the entire
damage up to a maximum of £4,000 unless he
can produce witnesses to prove that the plaintiff
was substantially culpable. Insurance companies
take advantage of this position and they negotiate
from strength or weakness as to
the quantum of
damages depending upon the evidence which they
can produce as to the degree of culpability of
the injured party.
There are no juries in Germany for either civil
or criminal cases. Witnesses' statements may be
recorded in the local court before a magistrate
and, if the parties agree, the record of the evidence
so taken may be produced in trial before the court
where the action is heard. This saves expense, if
the parties are agreeable, by avoiding the necessity
of bringing witnesses from long distances. Medical
reports are submitted by each side and in practice
there is full disclosure by each side to the other of
his evidence. A party who seeks to introduce evi
dence which has not been disclosed to the other
side may be discredited and adjournments are
readily granted to avoid the element of surprise
by the introduction of evidence which has not
been disclosed.
DAIL DEBATES
Increased Court Fees
Mr. Donegan asked the Minister for Justice (a)
whether any interested parties, apart from the
Department of Finance or any other Department,
were consulted before he recently made the various
fees orders, increasing fees payable by the general
public in the Land Registry, Probate Office, Sup
reme Court, High Court, Circuit Court, and the
District Court; (b)
if he had any consultations
with any outside bodies, and, if so who these out
side bodies were; (c) if he had such consultations,
what the reaction of such outside bodies were; and
(d) if he will state in view of the fact that it once
appeared to be the policy of the Government, in
the light of various statements by members of the
Government and in particular by the Minister
himself and his predecessor in office to bring down
the cost of litigation, the cost of land and in
dealings in connection with the Probate Office,
whether that policy has now changed; if he will
comment fully on this; and if the policy has not
changed, how he can justify these increases.
Mr. B. Lenihan :
The answer to the first two
parts of the question is in the negative. It has
never been the practice or policy to have such
consultations and when previous fees orders were
made in 1956 there were no such consultations.
With regard to the final part of the question, it
is settled Government policy to keep down as far
as possible the cost of litigation, the cost of deal
ings in land and the cost of taking out grants of
probate and administration. The official fees which
are payable in connection with these matters con
stitute only a small proportion of the total legal
costs involved.
The increase in court and Land Registry fees
effected as from 1st April last were necessitated
by increased operational costs. I may add that in
the case of the Land Registry there is a statutory
obligation on me to ensure that registration fees
are sufficient to cover expenses incurred under and
incidental to the working of the Registration of
Title Act.
Mr. Donegan :
Surely the Minister knows these
fees have increased out of all knowing and that
his justification that it is to meet increased costs
cannot hold water?
Mr. B. Lenihan : On average, they are increased
every ten years. They were increased ten years ago
by Deputy Sweetman.
Mr. Donegan : Maybe they were justified then.
Mr. Ryan : Will the Minister say whether he has
yet made the necessary orders affecting Circuit
Court costs so that increased court fees may be
recovered against the unsuccessful party?
Mr. B. Lenihan :
I am on the way to doing that.
Mr. Ryan : At the moment the successful litigant
has to bear the fees the Minister has increased.
Mr. B. Lenihan : That matter is under discus
sion.
Mr. Ryan : Can the Minister say when the dis
cussion will end?
Mr. B. Lenihan :
I am actually meeting the
Incorporated Law Society in the next few days.
Mr. Ryan :
Can the Minister say what is the
difficulty? It should be an easy thing.
Mr. B. Lenihan : There are difficulties.
Land Registry Fees
Mr. Donegan asked the Minister for Justice
46