Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Nov 1954

Vol. 147 No. 3

Public Authorities (Judicial Proceedings) Bill, 1954—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Everett)

I move amendment No. 1:—

Before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) Paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 111 of the Defence Act, 1954 (No. 18 of 1954), are hereby repealed.

The purpose of this amendment is to repeal the provisions of Section 111 of the Defence Act, 1954, which repeat the provisions of the 1893 Public Authorities Protection Act in so far as actions against persons acting in pursuance of the 1954 Act are concerned. Under Section 111 of the 1954 Act persons acting under the Act are protected in that actions against them must be taken within six months of the act, neglect or default complained of and the special provisions as to solicitor and client costs contained in the 1893 Act apply to such actions. These actions must be taken in the High Court but this provision is not being repealed. Neither is the provision in Section 111 which says that actions in respect of sentences imposed by or anything done by virtue of a court-martial shall be brought in the High Court. Therefore, in future, under the amendment, actions against persons acting under the 1954 Act (including actions concerned with the results of a court-martial) will not have the restrictive provisions of the 1893 Act applied to them but they will still have to be taken in the High Court.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindsay

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (4), lines 25 and 26, to delete "if the cause of action accrued before the first day of July, 1954" and substitute "if the action, prosecution or other proceedings has been commenced on the date of the passing of this Act".

My purpose in tabling this amendment to sub-section (4) is to distinguish between the time cause of action would accrue and the date of the commencement of proceedings. As I read the Bill, I envisaged a situation in which, after the 1st January next, one could still have a plea relying upon the provisions of the 1893 Act, at a time when this particular Bill which is going through the House would be law; so that one would have the most extraordinary position of relying upon an Act which would have been repealed. I thought, therefore, the best way out of that peculiar anomaly which I foresaw was to table this amendment, to get rid of the words relating to the cause of action and simply have the new Bill, when it becomes law on the 1st January next, referring only to actions taken after the 1st January.

It is my experience, and I am sure that other people interested in this Bill have much greater experience, that the time when the cause of action accrues is often a most arguable state of affairs, to say the least of it. Accordingly, one could easily have a situation where the time of cause of action could be argued successfully, even after the passing of this Bill, to have accrued—to be related to an incident prior to the 1st July and that nevertheless the cause of action itself would be established to have arisen after the 1st July. Then you would have this extraordinary position of relying upon the provisions of an Act which had been repealed. It is for these motives and with a view to clearing up the situation—which occurred in my mind, at any rate—that I have tabled this amendment.

Mr. Everett

We are opposing the amendment. The purpose of the Deputy's amendment is to provide that the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, shall not affect any proceedings unless these proceedings have been begun at the date of the passing of the new legislation. Under the Bill the 1893 Act will apply to all such proceedings unless the cause of action arose on or after the 1st July last. The reason for the provision in the Bill is to prevent stale claims being made against public authorities, that is, claims in regard to matters which arose, say, three or four years ago. It is to be noted that under the Bill the 1893 Act cannot be pleaded if the cause of action arises on or after the 1st July last no matter when the act of the public authority takes place. Thus, if a public authority does something in 1949 and a person does not suffer actionable injury until last September, the 1893 Act cannot be pleaded, whereas at present it can be pleaded and forms a good defence. The plaintiff at present in such a case as I have mentioned would lose his action because time runs from the act of the public authority and not from the date the cause of action arises.

I am sorry I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment though I can appreciate his reasoning. We must, however, prevent out-of-date claims being made against public authorities and we do not want to interfere too drastically with the existing rights of public authorities where causes of action have arisen.

Mr. Lindsay

Having regard to the Minister's statement, my anxiety is, to a considerable extent, relieved. Accordingly, I withdraw the amendment.

The Taoiseach

May I say that I appreciate what was behind the amendment which was moved by Deputy Lindsay and, to a considerable extent, I have sympathy, not with the form of his amendment but with the idea behind it? I am afraid the form of the amendment would probably not achieve what he desires to have achieved because it would result in the fact that, in cases where actions have actually been instituted on the coming into operation of this Act, the Public Authorities Protection Act could be pleaded but, in reference to stale actions which had arisen years ago, it could not be pleaded. I do not think that is what Deputy Lindsay meant. The trouble arises from the word "accrued" in sub-section (4) of this section: "... if the cause of the action accrued before the first day of July, 1954." I am sure that that is what was in Deputy Lindsay's mind. We were open to conviction on that score, provided stale demands were conceded. The date in the Bill—the 1st July—was taken purely empirically. The word "accrued" may possibly give rise to difficulties. If Deputy Lindsay was afraid the cause of the action accrued before the 1st July but did not emerge as an injury until after that date, something might be said for that viewpoint. The only thing intended to be covered in sub-section (4) was the prevention of stale demands. For instance, cases arose years ago in which the Public Authorities Protection Act would have been part of the proceedings. Perhaps ex gratia payments have been made but it would be very difficult if all these claims could be raised again when, perhaps, the witnesses have gone, and certain injustices might be done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2, as amended, put and agreed to.

Section 3 and Title agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

Mr. Everett

Perhaps the House might be willing to give me the remaining stages now?

Mr. Boland

Yes. However, I should like to make a statement on the Fifth Stage.

Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Boland

During the debate on the Second Reading, it was mentioned from this side of the House that a number of members of our Party—in fact, the majority of them—think the six-year period in which to take an action against a local authority is too long. The Taoiseach has just referred to stale actions. I think an action taken against a local authority after six years could be called a very stale action.

The Taoiseach indicated that he was considering amending the Statute of Limitations. I do not know whether or not he has thought over the matter since, but that is what he said. The opinion here—and I share it—is that three years, or something like that, would be more appropriate for ordinary actions. We agree that the individual and the local authority should have the same status. The majority here feel that the public authority and the individual should be the same but that the period is too long. I do not know whether or not the Taoiseach means to take immediate action or how he intends to tackle the matter. It was suggested here that perhaps a committee composed of experienced and able Deputies from both sides of the House, such as members of local authorities, and so forth, might be appointed to consider it. We think something should be done to shorten the period in which action might be taken.

The Taoiseach

I agree entirely with what Deputy Boland has just said, that is, that the period of limitation is, in general, too long. It had always been my intention to have a Bill dealing generally with the Statute of Limitations brought in. That is being drafted at the moment. We should be very glad of the Deputy's co-operation and assistance in working out what would be the proper period of limitation. Perhaps, when the Bill is drafted, we could give a copy of our suggestions to the Deputy and we would be able to have his co-operation and counter-suggestions and, if the Deputy thought it desirable, we would accept his offer of co-operation from people of experience on both sides of the House. It is a matter which affects the public generally and all points of view should be considered. I shall endeavour to have the Bill drafted within the shortest possible time.

Mr. Boland

That is satisfactory.

Major de Valera

All limitations?

The Taoiseach

I hope to have a comprehensive Bill bringing all periods of limitations up to date.

Major de Valera

That would be very welcome.

Question put and agreed to.