The Gazette 1987

GAZETTE

JU LY/AUGUST

1987

A A ^ p T T

p

INCORPORATE D

In this Issue

| LA WSOCIETY h H / r I I r ofm U a k a m m f | / L I I L

Vol. 81 No. 5 June 1987

Viewpoint

143

Licensed Premises for sale

145

Viewpoint The Minister for Justice's recent statement in reply to a Dail ques- tion that he had no plans at present to set up new Courts to hear civil appeals from the High Court is a disappointment. Not only is it an in- dication that no immediate change may be expected, but there was a clear implication that until a formal proposal was made to the Minister the matter would not be considered. It might have been expected that the Department of Justice, who have full knowledge of the serious overloading of the Courts' case- load, would already have had the matter under consideration. The Minister acknowledged that he was aware that the Chief Justice had recently raised the issue for debate. This was in the Cearbhall O'Dalaigh lecture in 1986, when Mr. Justice Finlay put forward strong arguments for the introduc- tion of an intermediate Court of Appeals on the civil side. The need for some alleviation of the burden of the Supreme Court Judges is manifest once the increase in their caseload is measured. In the legal year 1964/65, excluding interlocutory motions, 121 appeals were entered for hearing before the Supreme Court. In the legal year 1985/86 the comparable figure was 358. The figures for the cur- rent year show a continuation of this trend. A recent Legal Diary listed 109 cases as being ready for hearing by the Court. With the High Court having under the Constitution primary jurisdiction in all areas there was, in the absence of any intermediate court on the civil side, no alter- native but to have the Supreme Court hear appeals from the High Court. Litigants who brought (and, indeed, in most cases were obliged

Practice Note

1 53

to bring) their actions in the High Court could hardly be deprived of their right of appeal. It also has to be said, with due temerity, that the heavy caseload might lead to a decline in the jurisprudence of the Court. An appeallant court may well be able to do justice between the parties, deal satisfactorily with the argu- ments put before it by their advo- cates and yet produce a Judge- ment which may not be of great assistance to future litigants and their legal advisors. It may not always be apparent how the Court has resolved apparent conflict bet- ween previously decided cases, dealt with particular arguments, or even whether certain lines of argu- ment were put to the Court. A final Court of Appeal should have suffi- cient time available to it to enable it to produce Judgements which will not only deal with the issues in the case but contribute further to the Court's jurisprudence. There are no easy cases in the Supreme Court, none that do not require the study of transcripts of evidence, many that require the reading of substantial volumes of materials which have been put in evidence in the High Court and some where the amount of material to be considered by the Court following some lengthy and complex action is mind-boggling. The introduction of a multi- Judge Court of Appeal should enable the overload on the Supreme Court to be reduced whilst still providing the litigant with an appeal to a different Court. This system has operated satisfac- torily on the criminal side for over sixty years. It should now be in- troduced as a matter of urgency on the civil side. •

Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgements (European Communities) Bill

1 57

Solicitors Golfing Society

159

An Accident

Compensation Act

161

Professional Information

169

•

Executive Editor: Mary Buckiey

Editorial Board: Charles R. M. Meredith, Chairman John F. Buckley Gary Byrne Daire Murphy Michael V. O'Mahony Maxwell Sweeney Advertising: Sean 0 hOisin. Telephone: 305236 307860 Printing: Turner's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford. The views expressed in this publication, save where otherwise indicated, are the views of the contributors and not necessarily the views of the Council of the Society. The appearance of an advertisement in this publication does not necessarily indicate approval by the Society for the product or service advertised. Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7. Tel.: 710711, Telex: 31219. Fax: 710704

143