The Gazette 1964/67

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

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