The Gazette 1985

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1985

GAZETTE

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. Jim Mitchell, T.D., Minister for Communications, Kildare Street, Dublin 2.

2 July, 1984

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

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.

3. For Irish Shipowners and their Insurers would be the ability to limit liability in a claim being 33