Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 May 1995

Vol. 452 No. 8

Adjournment Debate. - High Court Delays.

Mr. D. Wallace

I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Substantial delay in the processing of a legal case is frequently a cause of great distress to the people involved. The aggravation is particularly damaging for the innocent party who simply wants to see justice done, and to have the case completed as quickly as possible so as to get on with their lives. While the delay itself is a cause of great concern, a further problem frequently arises. This relates to the ever-increasing costs which are associated with long drawnout cases. The problem of costs is particularly acute when the case is being heard in either the High Court or the Supreme Court.

Recently I submitted a question to the Minister for Justice on the number of cases which have been pending in the High Court for five years or more. In her reply last week the Minister informed me that the longest delays in the High Court are associated with personal injury claims. She stated that there are 27 such cases currently in the system for which a notice of trial has been received more than five years previously, and which have not yet been completed. In the course of her reply, the Minister expressed her personal concern at delays and indicated that a review of the situation is under way. I welcome both the Minister's concern and the review process.

However, I am extremely dissatisfied with the quality of information which seems to be available to the Minister on this matter of critical importance to the efficent operation of our higher courts. For example, I am aware of a case involving a dispute relating to a will which has been ongoing in the High Court for in excess of ten years. Indeed the case in question initially came before the High Court in February 1978. Consequently the case, which remains before the High Court, is without final resolution more than 17 years after its initial hearing.

This is simply ridiculous and cannot be allowed continue. As well as being a source of great concern to those immediately involved, it clearly reflects a major gap in the audit procedures which are in place to monitor the processing efficiency of our higher courts. The fact that the Minister was seemingly not made aware of this case when preparing a reply to my question is particularly worrying. The obvious question that arises is whether there are many other such cases pending resolution in the High Court for totally unacceptable periods of time.

For obvious reasons of confidentiality, I cannot comment in any specific way on the case I mentioned. However, as an indication of the extent of upset caused by the case, I would like to state that the legal representatives of one of the parties have attended the High Court or the examiner's office on more than 40 occasions since 1985.

I will be happy to provide the Minister, in confidence, with the details of the case, and I urge her to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the factors contributing to the delay as a matter of great urgency. Keeping in mind the fact that justice delayed may become justice denied, I request the Minister to ensure that her original reply to my question be reviewed and updated as soon as possible. The many people who place their full trust in our higher court system deserve nothing less.

Mrs. Owen

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I would be very glad to receive the details of that case, about which I do not have information, and I will look into it.

The position is that the longest delay in the hearing of listed cases in the High Court arises in the hearing of personal injury cases where there is a delay of approximately three years between the date of receipt of the notice of trial and the date of trial. Personal injury cases cannot be listed to fix a date for hearing until a notice of trial is received by the court from either of the contesting parties. In relation to other types of civil cases — for example non-jury and Chancery cases — the position is that cases cannot be listed to fix a date for hearing until a notice of trial and subsequent certificate of readiness is received by the court. There is a delay of approximately nine months between the date of receipt of the certificate of readiness and the date of the trial in such cases.

Cases listed for trial, however, are subject to application for adjournment from either party and, in the interest of justice, the courts obviously have to rule on such applications. It is not a matter in which the Minister for Justice has a function. It is in this context that some cases can be outstanding in excess of five years after service of a notice of trial.

It would not be appropriate for me to give information regarding any specific case which is pending. Such information will be given on request by the court to the litigant or his legal representative.

Delays in the hearing of cases in the courts is a matter of great concern to me and is currently under examination in my Department. In line with the commitment given in the Programme for Government, a review of the Courts and Court Officers Bill, 1994, is being carried out to ensure that the provisions it contains adequately address the backlog of cases for hearing in the courts. This review is being carried out and I hope to be in a position to announce my proposals in this regard shortly.