The Gazette 1972

Adjournment Dail Debate on High Court Offices, December 15th, 1971

the Taxing Masters to he discharged by them, he learned from the Faxing Masters that an approach had been made to them to accept the functions of the Master of the High Court, which, of course, was absolutely absurd because there is as great a difference between chalk and cheese as between the functions of the Master of the High Court and the Taxing Masters. The Taxing Masters informed those officers who approached them that they were not interested in the proposal, that it was flatly in contradiction or contrary to the terms of their appointments and that they had no intention of assuming the duties of the Master of the High Court which they considered themselves entirely unsuited to perform. That was thought to he the end of it, hut on 2nd November the Taxing Masters received a letter dealing with the interview which I have just related and which occurred on 1st November. The letter stated that there had been a change of thought about the matter and that it was not now proposed to proceed with the change or with the proposal to abolish the office of Master of the High Court. Subsequently a letter was received stating that it was proposed to make certain changes, that though it was not proposed to abolish the office of Master of the High Court, the following changes would be made : the Mas- ter of the High Court would transfer his office to the Senior Taxing Master's office; the Senior Taxing Mas- ter would go to the office of the Junior Taxing Master and the Junior Taxing Master would transfer his office to a conference room 240 yards away. It was stated also that it was proposed to effect these changes as from 22nd November. On 4th November the 'Faxing Masters replied stating they did not accept the proposed changes. On 9th November the most senior officer in the Department of Justice consulted the Taxing Masters regarding accom- modation and there was a discussion between the most senior officer in the Department and the Taxing Masters, and the Taxing Masters made it clear they did not pro- pose to transfer or to accept the alternative accommo- dation because it was not suitable. I wish to emphasise that they made that perfectly clear in their letter and made it perfectly clear to the Secretary of the Depart- ment on 9th November. At that discussion, the matter was left in mid-air— there was no decision on it, no arrangement come to— and the Secretary of the Department left on the note that he would think about the matter. Nothing further was heard by either of the Taxing Masters until they reported for duty on 22nd November which I think was a Monday. The senior Taxing Master found that the lock on the main door of his office had been changed and that his key would not fit it. He went around to another door which leads to his office and found that it was very crudely, as I said earlier, hut permanentlv barricaded, by having a crude piece of wood nailed upon it so that he could not get into it, and it is very significant to note that there were two other doors—artificial or ornamental doors at the Tax- ing Master's office which were not doors at all but which were there really only for ornamental purposes— and so determined were these officers of the Minister in 117

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan): At Question Time today I tabled the following question : To ask the Minister for Justice if he is aware that due to the inter- ference by his Department in the day to day running of the Taxing Masters' offices in the Four Courts without any consultation with the Taxing Masters, the work of these offices has been completely disrupted and is at a standstill with consequent inconvenience to the legal pofession and general public; if he will take steps to ensure that proper provision is made for the smooth running of these offices; and if he will make a statement nil the matter. I regret to say that I consider the reply of the Minister for Justice to be unsatisfactory. I did feel that the Miniter was apologetically standing over a state of affairs which he did not believe he could justify. I raise this matter on the adjournment because I he] ieve there is a considerable principle involved. We have here an example of the Executive, the Government ui this country, adopting what I consider to he a very high-handed and arrogant attitude to a judicial or quasi-judicial officer or officers, and I think it is clear that unless we have a reasonably harmonious approach from the Executive to the judicial or quasi-judicial offi- cers, indeed to all parts of the administration under the various Departments, we will have nothing but chaos. One of the oldest offices in the High Court is that of 1 axing Master. I believe it has existed for approximately 100 years. There are two Taxing Masters. They perform Miat, in my opinion, is a judicial, certainly a quasi- judicial, function. They should he independent; they should not he interfered with; the dignity of their officc should he upheld. Although it is not directly related to this question there is the position of Master of the High Court, another office of a judicial nature second only to that of a judge of the High Court, and according to reliable ^formation which I have before me and which I intend to put on the record of the House, and defy the Minister tp contradict it—if he does I will ask him to substan- t'ate his contradiction—the present Master of the High Gourt will have concluded his term of office in a short t uie I am informed that on 29th October last, °fficers from the Department of Justice, approached Master of the High Court and asked him to v acate his court, to hand over the court for use for other Purposes. Having considered the matter, the Master of the High Court decided that, having occupied that c °urt and having discharged his duties therefrom for a Pproximately twenty vears, he would not vacate the ?°urt until his term of office had expired, and he so ^formed the officers. He thought that was the end of the matter, hut in the s pace of three or four days he received a letter over the Written signature of the Minister for Justice, thanking him for his co-operation and for his a ^reement to vacate his court in favour of another Judge to he appointed. The Master of the High Court K as utterly amazed, and, it having been brought to his Uotice when he was requested to vacate his office that it *as proposed to abolish the office of Master of the High Gourt and to hand over the functions of that office to