The Gazette 1990

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1990

INCREASE IN COURT FEES The Minister for Justice increased certain Court fees with effect from January 1, 1990. These fees are specified in District Court (Fees) Order, 1989 (S.I. No. 343 of 1989) (Stationery Office; Price: 90p Postage: 32p), Circuit Court (Fees) Order, 1989, (S.I. No. 342 of 1989), (Stationery Office; Price: 70p Postage: 32p and the Supreme Court and High Court (Fees) Order, 1989 (S.I. NO. 341 of 1989) (Stationery Office; Price: £2.20 Postage: 63p) The President of the Law Society, Mr. Ernest Margetson, in a press release on January 11, 1990, strongly attacked the increase in fees. Mr. Margetson stated that recent increases in stamp duty imposed from 1 January 1990 on District Court documents make it prohibitively expensive for mem- bers of the public to pursue modest claims such as the recovery of small debts, redress for defective goods, unsatisfactory holidays or minor road accidents. Mr. Margetson stated that the increase in stamp duty in the District Court on civil processes have been by as much as 200% and come at a time when the efficiency of the legal process through the District Courts has been significantly eroded by the embargo of staff recruitment. The increases have also been imposed against a background in which the District Court Office had previously been declared to be self financing. The increase in stamp duties will have the effect, for example, of increasing from £10.50 to £25.00 the preliminary court cost of taking the necessary legal steps to en- force the collection of an unpaid debt. Demanding that the increases be immediately withdrawn, Mr. Margetson said "this increase effectively constitutes a denial of the right of access to the District Courts for people of modest means with claims which in money terms may not be great but which to them are very important. In effect, the increases withdraw a right of redress for many with very genuine injuries and grievances."

THE NAME OF THE STATE Considerable confusion arises from time to time about the precise name of this State. In Ellis -v- Assistant Commissioner O'Dea and District Justice Shields (The Irish Times Law Report, January 8, 1990, Supreme Court) Mr. Justice Walsh referred to what appeared to him to be the conscious and delib- erate practice of incorrectly setting out the name of the State in extra- dition warrants. Mr. Justice Walsh stated that in the English language the name of the State was "Ireland" as prescribed by Article 4 of the Constitution; the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 did not purport to change the name of the State nor could it have done so and a constitutional referendum would be required to effect any change in name. Mr. Justice Walsh con- sidered that if the courts of other countries seeking the assistance of the courts in this jurisdiction were unwilling to give the State its con- stitutionally correct and internat- ionally recognised name, then in his view warrants from such countries should be returned to the request- ing state until they have been rectified. Mr. Justice McCarthy in Ellis endorsed the views expressed by Mr. Justice Walsh as to the use of the correct name of the State in documents emanating from courts in other countries which seek the assistance of the courts in this jur- isdiction. He considered that in future the courts should decline to sanction any further such refusal to recognise Article 4 of the Con- stitution and that if this resulted in a warrant not being endorsed or

enforced in the State, the problem would not have been created in this jurisdiction. The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Finlay, agreed that it was most undesirable that the name of the State should be incorrectly set out in the warrants at issue but he preferred to reserve the question of whether such a misnomer would constitute good grounds for refus- ing to make an order for the delivery of the person whose extra- dition is sought. Mr. Justice Walsh in a Foreword to William Binchy's Irish Conflicts of Law (Dublin, 1988) also dealt with this theme. He stated that the name which Irish law attributes to this State was "Ireland" and was so acknowledged by a com- munique from 10 Downing Street in 1937. He continued: "Regrettably some of our semi- State bodies seem to be infected with a similar confusion [as the English courts]. There is only one State in the world named "Ireland" and reference in con- tracts to the applicable law as "the law of the Republic of Ireland" or "the law of the Irish Republic" are wrong. Whatever justification may exist for English confusion there is none whatso- ever for Irish ignorance. Our semi-State bodies and their legal advisers might at least honour the Golden Jubilee of the Con- stitution of Ireland by learning the correct name of the State upon which they depend". It behoves lawyers in Ireland and elsewhere to have regard to these dicta when preparing legal docu- ments.

13