I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments Bill, 1998: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, subsection (4), line 17, after "include" to insert "the Courts Act, 1996, the Courts Act, 1997, the Courts (No. 2) Act, 1997 (other than sections 3 and 9 thereof) and".
This is a technical amendment which addresses the fact that the Courts Act, 1996, Courts Act, 1997 and the Courts (No. 2) Act, 1997 are defined by the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial and Court Officers Act, 1998. That Act omitted three Acts from the definition because it updated the 1961-95 citation, not the 1961-97 citation. The amendment seeks to address this problem.
I have been advised that there is no pressing need for Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment. If the amendment related to an issue of substance, and if non-acceptance of it were to have adverse implications for the Bill, I would be more inclined to accept it. I understand this is not the case. However, I will ensure that an appropriate adjustment is made in a Bill that would be more suitable to the task than this particular Bill. I appreciate the fact that Deputy O'Sullivan has brought the matter to my attention. It would not be appropriate to deal with the matter in this instance but I will address it in a more appropriate forum.
I accept the Minister's assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 10, subsection (2)(d), line 18, after "Convention" to insert the following:
"; and
(e) such report (if any) published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on the 1996 Accession Convention as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister for the purposes of this section".
This amendment will remedy an omission in the Bill. The reports on the May 1968 convention and all accession conventions will be covered and will be evidence under section 6, but not the 1996 Accession Convention. This should be provided for. I understand this report has not been published so my amendment caters for a possible future publication.
I appreciate the intention behind Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment. However, it is just over two years since the Accession Convention was signed. At this stage the likelihood of an explanatory report being produced is remote. The amendment clearly highlights this regrettable state of affairs but, for the practical reason that I do not believe we would ever have to rely upon its provisions, I am not disposed to accepting the amendment.
If that report appeared, would there be a way of incorporating it in legislation?
Yes. We would obviously take the opportunity of obtaining some alternative legislative vehicle whereby we would incorporate the provision to ensure that judicial notice would be taken of the matter. The question of an explanatory report being produced at this point and at this remove seems remote. If it should transpire that the opposite is the case, we will be in a position to utilise a legislative vehicle to incorporate the intentions which are encapsulated in the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sections 7 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 15, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following subsections:
"(4) Any rule of court or order under the Companies Act, 1963, inconsistent with the Conventions, is hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency, and the Conventions shall have effect in the State.
(5) In subsection (4), 'Conventions' means the Hague Convention abolishing the requirement of legalisation of foreign public documents of 5 October 1961, the European Convention on the abolition of legalisation of documents executed by diplomatic or consular officers of 7 June 1968, and the Convention abolishing the legalisation of documents in the member states of the European Communities of 25 May 1987.".
In 1996 the Government decided to ratify these conventions on the legalisation of documents. They are also known as the "Apostille". However, quite some time has passed and these statutory instruments have not been made. Therefore, I propose that primary legislation, that is this amendment, should be used to enable ratification. Otherwise, I would contend that we might be waiting for a considerable time. This would be a mechanism for the ratification of these conventions on the legalisation of documents.
The proposed amendment states rather baldly that the various legalisation conventions shall have effect in the State. Each of the three conventions requires the deposit of an instrument of ratification and it is only within a specified period after such deposit that they are capable of having any effect in so far as relations between ourselves and other states party to those conventions are concerned. The bringing into effect of the three conventions which are the subject of the amendment is dependent upon the completion of the necessary ratification procedures which, in turn, require that the relevant rules of court be prepared and that certain changes be made to a Companies Forms Order, 1964.
I am happy to inform Deputy O'Sullivan that matters have advanced to a stage where the ratification instruments of two of the conventions, the Council of Europe Convention and the EEC Convention, should be lodged next week. A ratification of the Hague Convention will take place subsequently and will be timed to ensure that all three conventions come into force on the same day. The net result is that the conventions should come into force during March of next year.
The Minister will be aware that the fact that these conventions have not been ratified is causing a major cost to businesses. I accept the Minister's assurance that these will be ratified early next year.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 17, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) Where by virtue of any enactment (including but not limited to section 39 of the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996), a court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings proposed to be brought against a person outside the jurisdiction, but in the particular circumstances of the case the relevant rules of court (including but not limited to Order 11 of the Rules of the Circuit Court, 1950 or Order 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986) do not provide for service of the proposed proceedings or notice thereof out of the jurisdiction against that person, the court may order such service.".
This amendment deals with the problem which arises out of the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996. That Act authorises the court to hear a divorce application brought by someone domiciled in Ireland against someone who is not domiciled in Ireland and this can be determined by the Irish courts. However, to serve the civil bill which starts the divorce case on the spouse who is domiciled outside Ireland the permission of the court is needed and that is where the problem arises because the rules of the Circuit Court only allow permission to serve notice out of the jurisdiction if the person being sued is domiciled in Ireland, that is in Order 2, Rule 1(c). In short, the Act and the rules are somewhat contradictory. This subsection brings the two into line and ensures that the rules in the Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 will have full effect and will allow cases to proceed.
The procedures governing the service of documents outside the jurisdiction are contained in rules of court drafted by the relevant rules committee of the courts. In the case of the Circuit Court and the superior courts, to which Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment relates, those procedures are contained in Order 11 of the Circuit Court and the superior courts respectively.
I am not aware of any difficulties being experienced in relation to the service of documents outside of the State in, for example, divorce proceedings. In any event, if such difficulties arose the normal practice would be for an amendment to be made to the rules of court by the relevant rules committee. The Bill would not be the appropriate mechanism for making an amendment of this nature.
In those circumstances I am unable to accept Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment. However, I understand the logic behind her thinking. If the eventuality should arise and a difficulty is clear, then the appropriate mechanism will be utilised in order to bring about any change required.
My advice is that a problem may arise in this area. I accept that the Minister is not aware of any having arisen to date. I accept also that the Minister is suggesting there is a different mechanism for dealing with it. However, I may table this amendment on Report Stage because my understanding is that problems may arise and that this may be the appropriate way to deal with them.
In the interim I will bring the problem which has been highlighted by Deputy to the attention of the rules committee to see if it is of the view that it should make an amendment. I will revert to the Deputy having heard from the rules committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 16 agreed to.
Sections 17 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
First to Ninth Schedules, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.