The Gazette 1990

GAZETTE

APRIL 1990

A LAWSOCIETY hH/r I Ir° f m ^ ^ l f l ^ M ^ M I I Vol.84 No.4 May 1! J f t INCORPORATE D ( f | / L | L

In this Issue

Viewpoint 123 Striking off the Register and s. 12 Companies (Amendment) Act, 1982 125 Practice Notes 131 Lawbrief 134 SADSI News 137 People & Places 138 The Mortgage by deposit for present and future advances 141 SYS Joint Conference 145 Book Reviews 149 Correspondence 151 Professional Information 153 * Executive Editor: Mary Gaynor Committee: Eamonn G. Hall, Chairman Michael V. O'Mahony, Vice-Chairman John F, Buckley Gary Byrne Patrick McMahon Charles R. M. Meredith Advertising: Seán Ó hOisín. Telephone: 305236 Fax: 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. Daire Murphy John Schutte

Viewpoint The proposal emanating from Mr. Desmond O'Malley, Minister for Industry and Commerce, of a Tribunal to assess compensation for motor accident claims seems, with great respect, not to have been fully thought out. The in- surance companies having per- suaded the present Government's predecessor that the abolition of juries in personal injury actions would significantly reduce the level of awards to plaintiffs have been proved wrong, to the surprise of few in the legal profession. Some insurance offices apparently per- suaded by their own arguments aggressively sought additional motor business and have appar- ently suffered severe losses as a result of the allegedly high awards. The Minister by now should surely be persuaded that it is accepted in our culture that victims of accidents, whether in motor or industrial accidents, are entitled to a more generous level of com- pensation than might be available in some, though certainly not all, other jurisdictions. Such awards have been made by juries and now by judges, the large percentage of the former and all of the latter are presumably payers of motor insurance premiums and therefore the ultimate bearers of the load. There are of course, serious defects in the present system, the most obvious being the large number of uninsured drivers. It is unfair on the insurance companies that they have, through the Motor Insurers Bureau, the obligation to pay for the effects of the problems

caused by these uninsured drivers. If the Government wants to get insurance premiums down, then it must take all steps to ensure that the level of uninsured drivers is reduced to as near nil as is feasible. It is also clear that our level of road accidents is intolerably high. Road discipline is, particularly in urban areas, most noticeable by its absence. There seems to be very little enforcement of traffic laws; one particularly dangerous practice rampant in our urban areas is the "crashing" of traffic lights. A serious effort should be made to enforce our traffic laws. If it is possible to assemble large numbers of Gardai for security duties on the occasion of international meetings in Dublin Castle then might it not be possible to arrange to devote the attention of those Gardai on other days to the enforcement of our traffic laws? It should be borne in mind, if comparison is to be made with the Stardust Tribunal, that that ex- cellent body was created to assess levels of compensation where there was no doubt that the plaintiffs would have succeeded in civil actions but where grave doubts existed about the availability of funds to compensate them. Is Mr. O'Malley proposing strict liability for motor accidents with the State compensating the victims? If not, then perhaps he should think again about suggesting a tribunal as an alternative to our courts. He might also ponder whether such a tri- bunal might not be unconstitu- tional. •

Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7. Tel.: 710711. Telex: 31219. Fax: 710704.

123