Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Oct 1931

Vol. 40 No. 5

Circuit Court Rules.—Motion.

I move:—

That the Dáil hereby approves of the Circuit Court Rules which were laid on the Table of the Dáil on the 27th day of February, 1930, and resolves that it is expedient that the said Rules shall come into operation on the 1st day of January, 1932.

This is the much-debated question of the Rules of Court. I am not going into the history of the Rules of Court at all. I think the whole House is familiar with them. At the present moment we know there is a necessity for the Rules of Court. Since the Rules Committee drew up the Rules of Court and presented them to the House, I asked the Committee to come together again to consider as to whether any alterations were required in the Rules by reason of the report of the Joint Committee of the Dáil and Seanad on the Courts of Justice Act. The Committee are satisfied that the report which was made by them does not touch upon the Rules of the Circuit Court at all, and that these Rules, except in one little instance which I will mention, are not inconsistent in any way with that report.

The one way in which they differ from the report is this: In the report it is suggested that the Circuit Court Judges should go around once a month to each town in their area and hear undefended cases there. That I am satisfied is impracticable; it would take up too much of the Judge's time and would be a tremendous waste of time. The Rules Committee are of the same opinion and I might say the Incorporated Law Society are of the same opinion also. Accordingly, the Rules Committee think that the Rules they have here, that judgment by default should be entered up in the Office much as it is in the High Courts, should be contained in the Rules. Of course these Rules when they have been in operation will undoubtedly show—I am repeating this — whether they are good Rules or perfect Rules, or whether they have any defects in them. They will show that when they are actually in operation, but they have been drawn up with very great care by the Rules Committee and with great deliberation and I submit to the House that they are Rules now which ought to be put into force. The suggestion on the motion is that they should be put into force on 1st January next. That will enable such practitioners as have not already read them to study them in all their details.

I understand that the Minister, when bringing in those Rules before, said that one of the main questions of urgency about them was to provide a scale of costs. Would the Minister state before I say anything further where provision has been made in cases of court and contract costs, where the sum recovered or sued for exceeds £100?

It is in the discretion of the court.

It will be Quinn v. Stokes all over again.

It is in the discretion of the court.

Where is the discretion referred to?

If the Deputy looks through the various scales of cost he will see it laid down.

I have them before me. Take page 24 of the Schedule, Costs of Action (Contract), where the amount recovered or, in the case of a Dismiss, the amount sued for exceeds £75, but does not exceed £100.

There is a general provision dealing with costs.

We have in Part II some provision. Then we have ejectment on title where the valuation exceeds £30. That is quite all right, because it leaves the provision as regards what was over £30 to the limited jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. The Rules, I submit, as they stand, are going to take us back again to Stokes and Quinn.

I will read Order No. 40 for the Deputy: "Save as otherwise prescribed by Statute or by these Rules the costs of all parties of and incident to any proceeding in the court shall be in the discretion of the judge."

That is quite all right, but you have in the Schedule here provision made for costs.

That is so, but where the costs are not prescribed in the Schedule, then they are at the discretion of the judge under the Schedule or by Statute. There is also Rule 28. If the Deputy looks at page 56 he will see Rule 28 of the same Order, which deals with costs in equity suits. Rule 28 deals specifically with sums over £100.

It is quite all right to have that provision there, but in your Rules you refer to the Schedule at the end. You have no provision made in the Schedule, and that seems to be contradictory.

I do not think so.

Why provide for ejectments on title where the costs exceed £30, and then leave a gap?

There is a fixed scale up to a certain figure.

The trouble in dealing with these costs in this: We are in the position that we cannot make any amendments to the Rules. We have, as we have been informed in this House before, to take them in globo, either to take the whole lot or to reject the whole lot. There are some alterations that are not of very much importance that could be made in the Rules. I assume that the Minister who is the authority for putting these Rules in operation will give directions as to how these things may be remedied.

There is one rule dealing with the question of appeals. The appeal is entered 10 days from the time service of the document has been effected. There is nothing to indicate when the defendant got a copy of the document that has been served. I would suggest to the Minister when directions are being sent to the County Registrars that it should be suggested to them that instructions should be given to the Civil Bill Officers that they should mark on the copies the date on which service was effected. Those Rules are being put into operation under the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. They did not come before the House first until 1926. They came again in 1928, certain rules at any rate. These Rules were sent back again with a view to having a committee set up that would inquire into the working of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. It was assumed by this House that those Rules would not be given effect to unless and until there was a Report from that Committee making certain recommendations with regard to the operation of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. That Committee sat and when it had nearly completed its investigations and was about to make its report the Minister —in March, 1930, I think it was— brought rules again before the House. These rules were opposed by Deputy Wolfe, Deputy Redmond and myself on the grounds that the Committee was about to make its report and that the rules might remain in abeyance until that report was before the House. That report has been circulated to Deputies for a considerable time and it makes certain recommendations.

It is not, perhaps, appropriate to make any statement in the House that might in any way quarrel with a decision made by the courts, but it does strike me rather forcibly that a certain decision that has been made by the courts would tend to leave the outside person somewhat inclined to assume that this House was being forced into taking a certain decision. Since the Circuit Courts were set up we have been listening to statements that those courts were not in any way to be taken as similar to the old County Courts. We have been told that they are really new courts, with new jurisdiction, and in no way at all like the old County Courts. In the case of Quinn v. Stokes reference was made to the rules with regard to the fixing of costs that were in operation in the old County Courts. In the judgment there is reference made to the entirely new courts, yet we are told that the only things that they can fall back on are the rules that were operating under the old County Courts.

When the rules were last before the House the Minister allowed them to be postponed for six months on the grounds that the report from the Committee would in the meantime be before the House. That was in March, 1930. The report of the Committee has been in the hands of Deputies for a considerable time and Deputies are aware of its recommendations. These recommendations are matters of urgency for everybody concerned with the welfare of the unfortunate people who are litigants in the courts. The reason we opposed these rules was simply in order to try to force the Minister to give effect to the recommendations which we knew the Committee would undoubtedly recommend.

What is the position with regard to costs? Costs are set out on a truly remarkable scale. It might be said that I should not be opposed to that scale of costs on the grounds of killing the goose with the golden egg, but I feel that while the scale of costs may be suitable enough for cities where the people may be more wealthy, it certainly is an impossible scale in the outside districts. The poor people could not possible afford to pay the costs set out in that scale. They are absolutely outlandish. I will give one example. The costs in a simple title action for a sum not exceeding £5 will come to over £6 for any party without provision for counsel. The Minister is aware that the costs we could recover up to the present in a similar action in the Circuit Court would amount to £2 18s. or £2 19s. Here the amount is practically trebled. People in the country have often to go to court over disputes about rights of way, casements and so on, where the amount involved is not very considerable. There may be a dispute about a right of way into a bog or leading to a holding of land. The people have to go to court to decide the matter. Here we have costs set out in such a way that the whole dispute would not be worth troubling over. Indeed it would be better for the people to go miles of a round rather than have the rights exercised.

The object of postponing the rules was in order to secure that the present system of appeal would be departed from because the costs and expenses were altogether beyond the bounds of reasonableness. Deputies sat on the Committee and they were well aware of cases that have arisen in the country, the amounts involved in which were very small. The Minister was himself engaged in a certain case where decrees were given for £10 in one instance and £15 in the other. The case lasted in the Circuit Court for four or five days. It came up on appeal in the High Courts and the hearing lasted three days. The costs came to something between £150 and £170. Consider that amount in relation to decrees for £10 and £15. Compared with the procedure adopted with regard to appeals, the cost of rehearing before the Assize Court would never have amounted to anything approaching the present scale.

The Deputy is aware that these Rules do not deal with appeals and have nothing to do with appeals.

If the Minister were listening to me he would not make a point like that. I am pointing out that these Rules were opposed so as to force the Ministry to bring forward the recommendations of the Committee. I say deliberately that an effort is being made to jump the Dáil into bringing in those Rules. Before I vote for the acceptance of the Rules by the House I want a definite undertaking from the Minister as to the time within which he will bring in the recommendations of the Committee. If I do not have that undertaking I will ask Deputies to oppose the Rules. The Minister has had ample time to bring the Committee's recommendations before the House and so endeavour to save a lot of money being squandered by unfortunate litigants.

Why does not the Deputy attempt to be accurate?

Where is the inaccuracy? Attempt to be accurate! The Minister himself is not very accurate down the county. Is the Minister prepared to recommend to the Rules-making Committee that the costs should be revised? Is he prepared to recommend any alteration that may be suggested by the House in that respect? Is he prepared to give an undertaking as to when the recommendations of the Committee will be brought in? Unless some definite undertaking is given I will ask Deputies to vote against these Rules being passed into law.

The views expressed by Deputy Ruttledge are largely the views which I hold. The Deputy and I view this matter from the same standpoint. We represent areas that have strong points of similarity. As Deputy Ruttledge pointed out, the Rules that would be suitable for a City like Dublin, a City like Cork, the capital of this country, or a City like Limerick, are entirely unsuited for areas such as those represented by Deputy Ruttledge and myself. I want to make it clear to the House that if I vote for these Rules now as a matter of necessity, it is only on the understanding that the Rules are entirely of a temporary nature, and on the understanding that the Report of the Committee will be implemented at the earliest opportunity. It is quite wrong for the Minister to suggest that the Rules are not in conflict with the reports of the Committee. They are entirely in conflict. If anybody reads them together with the Morrissey report he will see right through the recommendations suggestions for Rules doing this and that and the other. The fact of the matter is that the Rules and the report of the Committee are entirely at variance.

If the Circuit Courts are ever to be brought into anything like working order, that report must be implemented at the earliest possible moment. As the matter stands, the passing of these Rules would really be putting the cart before the horse. First pass the Act. That is the natural order in which the matter should be handled. When you have the Act passed, then bring in the new Rules. I take it from what the Minister said yesterday, and from what was said on previous occasions, that he is now prepared to bring in a Bill at a very early date. The sooner he does that the better. That Bill will implement the Report in so far as the Executive Council approves of it. I want to see that done at the earliest opportunity. Then the Rules and the question of the costs would have to be reviewed.

It may be an unpopular thing for either of us to say that the costs awarded to solicitors are excessive, but when a matter like this becomes urgent I stand for it. There is no doubt that for areas like those represented by Deputy Ruttledge and myself the costs allowed under the Rules are excessive. The costs are reckless, and the scale was evidently prepared by men who did not know their job. Had there been representatives of areas like Deputy Ruttledge's and mine on the Committee drawing up those Rules, the schedule of costs would be very different from what it is. I also want to draw attention to this, that some of those Rules we are asked to approve of are entirely ultra vires. There is no question about that. I think that a Committee of the Bar has drawn attention to that. That is apparent to anybody reading the Rules.

Whoever drew up these Rules took upon himself the power of this House, the power of the Oireachtas. He proceeded to pass legislation in the form of these Rules. That is a procedure I will never stand for. This House and the Seanad are the Houses in which legislation should be introduced and passed, and that should not be done in a Government office or in any back officers in the City by officials or by anybody else.

These Rules contain provisions which can only be carried if they are approved of by the House. Some of them are not to be approved of, and some of them are expressly disapproved of by the Morrissey Report. Some of these Rules are, in effect, passed in some back offices in Dublin. I do not care how well they are intended, but they should be more carefully revised, at all events so far as costs are concerned. The Rules should be looked at from the poor man's point of view as well as from the rich man's point of view. We were told some years ago, when the Courts of Justice Act was being passed, that it was going to make the law cheaper than ever; to bring it to every man's door. It was going to be more convenient for the people. Deputy Ruttledge has given you instances of what has, in effect, occurred and what is occurring every day with regard to appeals from the Circuit Court. The sooner that sort of thing is put a stop to the better. The Courts of Justice Act said that there shall be an appeal on law and on fact from the decisions of the Circuit Court. There is no appeal on fact, although there is a decision saying that such a right does exist. Until the form of these appeals is entirely changed the poor man is deprived of the right of appeal. That is not right. There is a unanimous report from the Morrissey Committee asking that the Rules be altered. I would say that the sooner that is done the better.

There is also this other question on the Rules: As now provided there is a Schedule of the areas in which sittings of the Circuit Courts are to take place. Sittings of the courts are only to be held in such areas as are named. In my area, the very important town of Bandon, which is the capital of the Bandon area, is to have no sitting. The Bandon area is the name of the area for which the judge sits. According to the Rules as they appear, the judge cannot sit in that area because there is no provision made either in the capital or elsewhere in that area. Litigants are taken away from the town where from time immemorial courts have been held, and where there is now a very excellent courthouse. The sittings lapsed there because there was no proper courthouse accommodation. The courts were held in halls and in schools. Eventually, pending the building of the courthouse, the court had to be taken away to the city of Cork, and the court is still held in the city of Cork. If these Rules are to be regarded as final, the people of Bandon will keenly feel the injustice done them through taking from their town the sittings of the court which had been held there for a very long time indeed.

As regards what Deputy Ruttledge has said, he and I and everybody else did represent to the court and to our clients that the Circuit Court was entirely distinct from the old County Court, and that it was by no means to be looked upon as a successor of the old County Court. I now ask the Minister for Justice to say definitely that the recommendations made by the Morrissey Report will be brought before the House in the form of a Bill at a very early opportunity. That is the only way in which we can at all succeed in getting the Circuit Court into order. The present Rules are nothing more than a makeshift.

The statement Deputy Wolfe has made almost entirely covers anything I had intended to say in connection with this matter. I regard what probably may appear to the House as a comparatively small matter in the way that a really great many people in the area concerned regard it, and that is as a very important matter. It is a very important matter for debate and discussion amongst the people concerned. The very nature of the Rules and the fact that we are asked to take the whole lot or leave them all, makes it impossible to have this matter raised in any other way.

When the estimates for the Circuit Court were put before the House I drew attention to these matters on more than one occasion. What Deputy Wolfe and I have said has been represented to the Minister on various occasions already. This is really a very important matter for a large number of people in scattered remote portions of the county. I refer now to what Deputy Wolfe has referred to, the exclusion of the town of Bandon from any sittings of the Circuit Court. It is no harm to remind the Minister again that we want a sitting of this Court held in Bandon. This may be the last time that we will have an opportunity of having the matter gone into here. Whether the Rules are temporary or permanent I am not going to take any risks. I am going to put forward the views of the people I represent in this matter and I want to indicate that now to the Minister. Bandon is about twenty miles from Cork city, but the area of the Bandon Circuit Court extends over twenty-five or thirty miles. The Minister in reply to representations pointed out that it is not expected that a volume of business that would justify sittings of the Circuit Court in Bandon would be obtained. Deputy Wolfe, who has constant experience of the courts in the county, will be able to correct me if I am wrong in stating that the volume of business in that area compares favourably with that in any other area in the county. In making that statement I am taking something from the claim made by the local people that the volume of business in that area would be even more extensive.

Evidence on this point has been provided more than once in the courts in Cork. Litigants who have business at the Circuit Courts, witnesses, jurors, and the people generally think that it is a great hardship to be compelled to travel a very long distance to the court. The average farmer who has to discharge the rather unpleasant duty of serving on a jury must find it much more expensive and inconvenient to have to travel to the city of Cork rather than to the neighbouring town, less than half the distance away. From that point of view alone the matter is worthy of more consideration. Apart from that, the fact stands out that the facilities provided for the sittings of the court in Bandon are second to none. There is a very excellent courthouse provided there and the accommodation generally in the town would be quite suitable and sufficient. I hope the Minister will be able to give a promise that this matter will be dealt with, because in the absence of such a promise I must ask the House to indicate its disapproval of the Rules, even if only in connection with this matter, and I must vote against them myself.

On behalf of the commercial community I was interested in hearing what Deputies Ruttledge and Wolfe had to say on the question of the excessive charges. Representations have been made to me on the scale of charges embodied in these Rules. Representations have also been made to the Minister as to these high charges. I was rather disappointed with the reply which the Minister made to these representations. A copy of that reply has just been placed in my hands. In the course of the reply the Minister's secretary wrote:

As regards the suggestion that the scale of costs fixed by the Rules which are at present on the Table of the Dáil are too high, I have to say that the scales have been approved of unanimously by the Rule-making Committee after long and careful consideration and that the Minister is not prepared to reopen the matter at this stage. It might, however, be well to state, as showing the undesirability of reopening the matter, that representations have been made to the Minister from other quarters to the effect that these scales are too low and will not fully indemnify the judgment creditor for the expenses already incurred by him.

I should like to point out that when the Act was passed in 1924, setting up the Rule-making Authority, I certainly did not understand that that Authority was to fix the scale of costs. The Rule-making Authority, as set up under the 1924 Act, consisted of two Ministers, five Circuit Court judges, wo practising barristers, and two solicitors. The unfortunate people who have to pay the piper were not represented at all. Naturally we would have taken exception to the clause fixing the Rule-making Authority at that time if we had any idea that they were going to fix the scales of costs. Now when the Rules come out we find that scales of costs have been fixed.

It is no harm to mention in connection with these scales of costs that even at this moment persons with legal training question the right of the Rule-making Authority to fix costs, so that I am not satisfied that we are at the end of the causes which have given rise to such Acts. We have had two Acts already making legal what apparently was illegal. On behalf of the commercial community I certainly take exception to these costs. The Circuit Court costs, I understand, are based on the old County Court charges. It is only right to point out that these County Court charges were increased by 50 per cent. in August, 1919. By whom were they increased? Not by the Rule-making Authority. They were increased by the Lord Chancellor. So that we have the old County Court basis for the Circuit Court costs, plus 50 per cent. increase in 1919, plus an additional increase now fixed by the Rule-making Authority.

Deputy Wolfe has pointed out that when the changes were made in the Legislature it was said that we would have better and cheaper law. I will not say anything about the better law, but I will say that we have not yet seen cheaper law. I should like this question of the costs to be gone into. I should like to know from the Minister to whom an appeal on the subject of these costs could be addressed. Would the Rule-making Authority again have to be called into being for the purpose of considering a complaint of that character? If so, it is rather a serious question. Costs are flexible things which will vary from time to time and questions are bound to arise on them. We have at this moment a difference of opinion on the matter. Some people say that they are too high and apparently, according to the Minister, others say they are too low. Those who say that they are either too high or too low ought to have an opportunity of putting their views before some person who can give a judgment in the matter. Apparently prior to 1919 that discretion rested with the Lord Chancellor.

I would ask the Minister to consider whether some opportunity should not be given to any section of the community who take exception to any of these charges to appeal before some authority, for instance the Chief Justice. Let him settle the question of costs. I am satisfied that, fixed as they are now under the Rules without any reference to an appeal, the position is a very unsatisfactory one. I put that suggestion before the Minister in the hope that some means will be adopted for settling in a satisfactory manner a difficulty that is rather a serious one and has been a serious one in this country for some time.

I can only speak on this matter from the point of view that it was considered by the Committee of this Party that met for the purpose of finding some agreement upon it. I wonder if the Minister realises that it is most unfair to have this scale of costs fixed without first getting the views of the various parties, and without considering the differentiation that there is between country districts and the city. It was made clear that in the city a solicitor has far greater overhead expenses than one in the country. It appears to me that these costs are based on charges applicable to the city. Another point of view that I would like to express is that a litigant who succeeds in a case has to meet extra costs as between solicitor and client that are not what are termed "party costs." I am satisfied if these charges are going to be the basic charges under the Rules there will be much less litigation. People will resort to other means in order to try and settle their differences if they cannot afford to go to court in the ordinary way. I understand that in Circuit areas the Bar Association and the Incorporated Law Society fixed a scale which would be reasonable, and that scale was never abused. These costs are going to be forced on the people, as Deputy Good pointed out, without anyone being consulted except the gentlemen interested in the legal profession. The Committee this House set up should be consulted, should have some means of knowing what these costs were to be, and should have an opportunity of rejecting or amending some of them. The Minister will not even say that he is prepared to consider the suggestion made by Deputy Ruttledge, to consider the Rules at a later date.

I do not know if this is an opportune moment to mention it, but under the Rules everything is fixed for the solicitors and barristers and nothing is fixed for the layman. There is no protection at all for the layman from some solicitors. He is told that if a solicitor neglects a client's business he can be reported to the Incorporated Law Society. We know that there are gentlemen practising in the legal profession who should not be in it and against whom the layman has no redress. I think that that is a matter that should be considered in conjunction with the costs by a Committee of the House. I hope the Minister will meet the views that have been put forward and, if he does not express a definite view point in that respect, I hope that Deputy Good, Deputy Wolfe and Deputy Murphy will vote against the Rules and force the Minister to bring in something that will be in the nature of a solution of the question. It should not be left as it is now, no one being satisfied and everything being topsy-turvy.

On behalf of the farming community I desire to object to the scale of charges that has been laid down. We have the statement of Deputy Ruttledge, who, in my opinion, is an honest solicitor—and I did not think I would find the like—that where the charges were £2 18s., under the new scale laid down they will amount to £6 as a minimum. That is an enormous increase. What would be said of the farming community if they laid it down that butter was to be 4/- a lb. and if they sent representatives here to try to bring in proposals laying down that scale in this House? We had a Committee sitting that consisted of two Ministers, five judges, two barristers and two solicitors. They are the gentlemen who fixed the scale of charges and they send it here to have it adopted and made law for the benefit of the unfortunate people whom Deputies are supposed to represent. I do not think the Minister will find Deputies so anxious to oblige the legal profession in that respect. I am not prepared to wait until the Minister considers the question of bringing in new Rules. I know that once these charges go up it will be very hard to change them. I found through the country instances where people had bitter experience of the charges that are imposed at the present time.

Owing to the method in which Bills are rushed through this House one after another, we know that practically every section of the community find themselves more and more compelled to go to the legal profession for advice and assistance. That is all to the advantage of the profession. We know very well that owing to the manner in which Land Acts passed here are being interpreted, unfortunate tenants do not know where they are. On practically every estate in the country the legal profession has been called in and the cases are tried, not in the country, but in Dublin. It is no surprising thing at all to find bills amounting to £150 or £200 for legal expenses being clapped on to unfortunate tenants after they have come up to Dublin to try to look for justice, where it is not to be had. I suggest that the Minister had plenty of time since the Report was furnished to prepare his Bill. I suggest that the House should throw out these Rules and let the Minister reconsider them, instead of cogitating until 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning and making excuses here for the extraordinary actions of his agents through the country. He should devote himself to doing a little of what he is paid for, and bring in his Bills in good time. I suggest that Deputies should not give a silent vote on this question. If Deputies are going to allow legal charges to be raised by 100 or 150 per cent. and sit silent, when they go back to the constituencies that they pretend to represent, the people will have a perfect right to criticise their actions. Deputies should not now allow a body composed of a couple of Ministers, judges and barristers to lay down a scale of charges and have that scale, which the unfortunate people will be compelled to pay whether they like it or not, made law. It is time it was ended. We have had too much experience up to the present of the manner in which the unfortunate people of this country are being fleeced—I cannot call it anything else—by the legal profession.

I deprecate very highly the tone in which this debate has been carried on. I certainly thought that if there was one matter which could be regarded fairly and impartially and from a non-Party spirit, it was this question of the Rules of Court. I thought, moreover, that when gentlemen like the five Circuit Court Judges, the two barristers and the two solicitors nominated by the Incorporated Law Society would go to the enormous amount of trouble they have gone to, giving hours and days, and I would say, weeks of their time, without one penny remuneration, to the drawing up of these Rules, that they would receive the thanks of this House, and would not be made the butt of most unjust and unfair attacks in this House. To my mind, the country owes a debt of gratitude to those gentlemen for giving up so much of their time and going to such extraordinary trouble to prepare the Rules of Court. We have been told that the five judges and the two barristers and two solicitors recommended by the Incorporated Law Society are all out to fleece the public. What utter nonsense. What is it to the judges what the scale of costs in their courts is? Is it not the first business of every judge to see that fairness and justice will be done? What reason, do you think, these five judges would have for acting dishonourably and as dishonest men in putting forward a grossly unfair scale of costs and doing so deliberately? That is what we have been told.

In the case of the two solicitors, both of them are members of the Incorporated Law Society. One of them is a Dublin solicitor, the other is not. They are men of the very highest standing in their profession. Do you think that these two gentlemen would for a moment support a scale of costs that was going to work injustice, that was going to be too grossly high, and that was going to sacrifice the interests of the community to their professional interests? Do you think the same about the two members of the Bar who have been nominated to act on this Committee? I know that these gentlemen have given their greatest care and attention to this work. They have gone over and revised the Rules. They have asked the views of persons like the Taxing Masters and County Court Registrars. They have gone to the utmost trouble to get what they consider to be a fair and a proper scale of costs.

The scale of costs is condemned even before it is given a trial. There are two ways in which you can look at costs, the costs between solicitor and client, not between party and party.

A person may get a verdict, and get not only his costs, but his damages, paid to him. He may then discover himself very much out of pocket. A successful litigant—this sometimes happens—may find that, after being paid his damages and costs, he is still out of pocket because the difference between solicitor and client costs and party and party costs is so high. What the Rule-making Committee, in my opinion, should do is to see that while party and party costs never will reach solicitor and client costs, that at any rate party and party costs should bear some relation to solicitor and client costs. A man should not find himself steadily and consistently, as he may be in a right-of-way case, out of pocket. That was referred to by Deputy Ruttledge. A man may establish his right of way and then find that, after being paid on the ridiculously low scale of costs allowed to him against the other side, he is still many pounds out of pocket.

Would the Minister say where it appears in the Rules that there is going to be any difference between party and party costs and solicitor and client costs?

There is nothing of course in the Rules about that. The Deputy does not seem to know what the Rules are about. There is nothing in the Rules that deals with solicitor and client costs. The position with regard to solicitor and client costs will remain, but party and party costs ought to approximate to what solicitor and client costs will be.

Will they not go higher now?

No, why should they? To come on to the general question, Deputy Ruttledge has put forward the view that he was endeavouring to leave the Circuit Court without Rules and allow the present impasse to continue, that he was opposing the Rules deliberately and wantonly because he wanted to do what I may roughly call a bit of blackmail. He wished to oppose these rules because a Bill that has nothing whatever to do with them, that is completely unconnected with them, is held up.

When did I say that?

The Deputy said that he opposed the Rules because he wished to have the question of Circuit Court appeals brought before the House, to have an alteration in the mode of Circuit Court appeals expedited. That is the reason the Deputy has given for voting against the Rules to-day.

I said no such thing.

The Circuit Court Rules which are now before the House are Rules which regulate the conduct of the Circuit Court and have nothing on earth to do with the conduct of appeals or the costs awarded on appeals from the Circuit Court. The appeals are perfectly different and are dealt with in a different set of Rules. Therefore the question of appeals cannot arise on the discussion of these Rules. Deputy Ruttledge is evidently looking out for an excuse for a course of conduct which he took some little time ago. Deputy Ruttledge not only opposed the Rules when they came before the House previously but when the estimate for my Department came up, Deputy Ruttledge also opposed that though the Report of the Joint Committee was out at the time, and stated that he was opposed to the Rules being brought into force. Now he comes along here and his memory is certainly very much at fault. He said that I had from March twelve months to consider that Report. I took down his words, that I had "from March twelve months." As a matter of fact I have had since December last. I got these Rules into my hands for the first time and knew for the first time in December last any single one of the provisions which they contain, and not before December.

Did not this question of the Rules come before the Dáil on 12th March, 1930?

It came before the Dáil in March, 1930, eight months before the Report came out, but the Deputy said that I had since March, 1930, to consider the Report of the Joint Committee and to bring in amending legislation for the Rules of Court.

I said no such thing.

I took down the Deputy's words.

All of them?

The question before the House is this: Is the Circuit Court or is it not going to have Rules? If it is not going to have these Rules, it is perfectly obvious that it will never have any Rules. If they are to be opposed on the grounds put forward by Deputy Murphy, because one town that once had a sitting is not going to have it in future, then there will be twenty or thirty towns that once had sittings, and the Rules will be opposed on these grounds by every single Deputy speaking on behalf of every single one of these towns. If these Rules do not go through to-day it is perfectly obvious that the Circuit Court will have to carry on without Rules. That is the question you have got before you. I am very sorry that these Rules were not debated on their merits, and that extraneous matter has been brought in. I certainly endeavoured in opening the discussion to open it clearly and simply with reference to the Rules, and I did not refer to anything that has gone before. That has been forced on the House by the speeches made, and it is now for the House to decide whether the Rules shall or shall not come into operation.

Will the Minister give any undertaking as to when he proposes to bring in the Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Joint Committee?

It is a great insult to the members of the House who worked as hard as they could on the Courts of Justice Inquiry and reported back to the House in December last, to say now that the Minister will not give any indication or answer to Deputy Ruttledge's question. When does he propose to bring in the Bill? After all, there are two sides to the bargain. We worked very hard in order to facilitate the Minister and to make it possible for him to adjust the whole matter in relation to the Rules. I think the Minister should answer the question of Deputy Ruttledge.

Deputy Little is quite wrong. If the Deputy had been in his place yesterday he would know the answer which I gave to Deputy Wolfe. I am not going to be blackmailed by Deputy Ruttledge into giving an undertaking to-day. I adhere to what I said in answer to Deputy Wolfe yesterday.

Is it proper for the Minister to say that he has been blackmailed by anybody? I have blackmailed nobody, as the Minister is perfectly well aware.

I know the answer which the Minister gave yesterday. It was not satisfactory, because he did not make it definite enough. We want a definite answer in this matter. We have been too often put off by vague answers about when legislation will be brought in, in that way, and we must press the Minister to give a definite answer, and tell us exactly when it will be brought in.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 53.

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Seámus A.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, William Archer.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • Vaughan, Daniel.
  • White, John.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Leary, William.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
Top
Share