I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This Bill proposes substantial changes in the monetary limits of the civil jurisdiction of the Circuit and District Courts, in the case of the Circuit Court from £15,000 to £30,000 and in the District Court from £2,500 to £5,000.
The Bill also provides for a number of other important matters. These include provisions for the variation in future, by Government order, of the monetary limits of the jurisdiction of the Circuit and District Courts, provisions dealing with the costs that may be recovered when a case is taken in a higher court than is necessary, an increase in the number of judges of the High and Circuit Courts and in the number of justices of the District Court, and provisions for the service by post of District Court summonses in cases of summary jurisdiction.
This Bill represents the first instalment in a major programme of legislative reform that I plan to introduce in relation to the courts and the legal profession. I have already announced another initiative in the courts area which does not require legislation. That is the introduction of a small claims procedure in the District Court.
The new procedure will be established as soon as necessary rules of court have been made. Small claims courts, or procedures, operate in other jurisdictions, and I am confident that the introduction of a small claims procedure in our jurisdiction will make our courts more accessible, convenient and less costly for persons with relatively small claims. The new procedure is consistent with my overall policy of ensuring that legal services are provided and justice is administered in a cost-effective way. I will outline, briefly, the manner in which the small claims procedure will operate.
Under the procedure, a claimant may, instead of issuing a civil process in the ordinary way, apply to have a claim, not exceeding in value £500, processed through the small claims procedure. The procedure will not apply to claims related to personal injuries, damage arising from a traffic accident and hire purchase, leasing or other loan arrangements.
The application will be made on the appropriate form to the Small Claims Registrar at the nearest District Court Office. The claimant may call to the office for assistance in completing the form. A fee of £5 must be paid with each application. The Small Claims Registrar will consider each application and take whatever steps he may deem necessary, whether by way of interview of the claimant, or otherwise, to record the full facts of the claim.
The registrar will attempt to settle the claim between the parties, and may interview the parties themselves, or any other person who may be relevant in assessing the claim. If a settlement between the parties is reached, particulars of the settlement will be recorded by the registrar. If the registrar cannot effect a settlement between the parties, he will refer the matter for hearing in the District Court and he will inform both parties of the date, time and place of hearing. At the hearing, the Small Claims Registrar will present the facts as set out in the claim to the district justice. The claimant and respondent will be liable for their own witness and legal costs, if any.
I have decided to establish the procedure initially on a pilot scheme in the Dublin Metropolitan District Court, in Cork and at two other District Court venues. My intention is to extend the procedure to all District Court venues as soon as the pilot scheme has been fully tested.
I plan to introduce a further Bill — a Courts and Courts Officers Bill — before the end of the year. It will deal in particular with the establishment of a Court of Civil Appeal.
Although it would not be appropriate to discuss the detailed proposals in advance, my general approach is to create a structure in which the Supreme Court would deal only with appeals in the more important cases involving issues of law, including, of course, all appeals in constitutional cases. All other appeals from the High Court would be heard by the new Court of Civil Appeal.
A Bill to amend the law relating to solicitors has been in preparation for some time. Last year the Fair Trade Commission published a very comprehensive report following their study into restrictive practices in the legal profession. I will be introducing a Solicitors' (Amendment) Bill very shortly. It will be a major piece of legislation which will take account of the various recommendations made by the Fair Trade Commission for changes in the law relating to solicitors.
The Bill will include important provisions relating to the disciplinary provisions governing solicitors including the system for dealing with complaints and various new measures for the protection of solicitors' clients.
As Deputies will probably be aware, there is no corresponding legislation regulating barristers. Many of the Fair Trade Commission's recommendations are for fundamental changes in existing practices in the barrister's profession.
I have made it a priority to initiate a dialogue with representatives of the Bar Council on the subject of change in the profession. I met with the chairman and other members of the council on 10 April last. I am encouraged by the response I got from them and I am aware that the Bar Council are proposing to make certain changes voluntarily. I shall be having further discussions with the Bar Council soon to see what further progress can be made in this area.
I shall return now to the proposals in the present Bill. The limits of the civil jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts were fixed originally by the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, and were increased first in 1953, mainly to compensate for the fall in the value of money. They were again increased by the Courts Act, 1971. The limits were last increased by the Courts Act, 1981, and on that occasion the civil jurisdiction in contract, tort and related jurisdictions was fixed at £15,000 for the Circuit Court and £2,500 for the District Court.
The Fair Trade Commission in their recent report into restrictive practices in the legal profession suggested that the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court should be increased to £25,000 and that the jurisdiction of the District Court should be increased to £5,000.
The Government, after careful consideration, have decided to increase the Circuit Court's jurisdiction in contract and tort to £30,000 and the District Court's jurisdiction in these matters to £5,000. Other jurisdictions of the Circuit Court which have been traditionally linked with the contract and tort limit, will also be similarly increased.
Under the Courts Act, 1981, the Circuit Court's jurisdiction limit in actions relating to title to land and in equity cases was increased to £200 rateable valuation. However, the court's jurisdiction under the Registration of Title Act, 1964, remains limited to land with a rateable valuation not exceeding £60. There is no good reason for leaving the court with a lesser jurisdiction in registration of title matters and the Bill increases the rateable valuation limit to £200 in these matters.
The District Court's jurisdiction limit in contract and tort cases will be increased from £2,500 to £5,000. Other jurisdiction limits which are traditionally linked with these limits are also being increased to £5,000. These proposed increases in the jurisdiction limits of the Circuit and District Courts — which double the existing limits — are contained in sections 2 to 10 and section 13 of the Bill, and are fully justified having regard to the level of inflation since the last increase.
The proposed increased jurisdiction limits of the lower courts will make access to the courts in civil matters cheaper and more convenient for litigants. The District and Circuit Courts are located conveniently around the country. As a result of my proposals, legal and other costs should be significantly reduced for the public over a wide range of litigation, as it will be possible to initiate many more actions in the District and Circuit Courts where costs are lower and cases are disposed of more speedily.
The Government are concerned, in particular, about the escalating cost of liability insurance, and are committed to reform of the present arrangements for the determination of personal injury actions. I expect that the proposals in this Bill will lead to a substantial transfer of personal injuries actions from the High Court to the lower courts, resulting in savings in legal and other costs, such as travelling expenses for litigants and witnesses. This should have a particularly beneficial effect on the level of legal costs in these cases which comprise the majority of cases heard in the High Court, and facilitate reductions in the real cost of motor, public liability and employer insurance.
The Bill also proposes in sections 11 and 12 to increase the jurisdiction of the lower courts in important areas of family law. The Bill provides for an increase in the weekly amount that the District Court and the Circuit Court on appeal may order under the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act, 1976, for the maintenance of a spouse and dependent child, from £100 to £200 for a spouse and from £30 to £60 for a child. These increases will assist many deserted spouses in obtaining substantially increased maintenance for themselves and for their children. A similar increase in the weekly amount that may be awarded by the District Court for the maintenance of a child under the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1964, from £30 to £60, is also proposed.
It has been necessary in the past for the Government to bring an amending Bill before the Oireachtas each time they desired to increase the jurisdiction limits of the Circuit and District Courts. Section 16 of the Bill contains an important provision which will allow the Government in future to revise, by order, the monetary limits of these courts having regard to changes in the general value of money since the limits were previously revised. This provision will enable the real value of the monetary limits of the lower courts to be readily maintained at the levels approved of by the Oireachtas in this Bill. It will avoid the necessity of amending legislation each time the Government consider that the jurisdiction limits should be revised to take account of changes in the value of money.
I should make it clear that if it were desired at a future date to alter the civil jurisdiction limits of these courts other than in line with changes in the value of money, this could only be done by introducing legislation. The new provision will apply to all monetary jurisdiction limits conferred on the courts in civil matters, whether conferred in courts legislation or in other enactments. It will also allow for the variation of amounts specified elsewhere in this Bill in regard to the recovery of costs by a plaintiff in a civil action. I will come back to this matter later.
The Government have decided that, because of the importance of any decision to increase the jurisdiction limits of the lower courts, a motion of both Houses of the Oireachtas approving of any proposed Government draft order will be required before the order can take effect.
I am proposing in section 17 of the Bill to increase the maximum number of High Court judges from 14 to 16, in addition to the President of the High Court. I assured the Oireachtas, when the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990, was being debated that I would keep its effect on the workload of the High Court under close review. Experience to date indicates that the Act has had a significant impact on the workload of the High Court, and two additional judges are needed to ensure that these complex and often time consuming cases are dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
At present, there are two temporary Circuit Court judges and six temporary district justices. It has become clear that the increase in work which gave rise to these temporary appointments is likely to continue, and the Bill recognises that fact by providing a sufficient complement of permanent judges for the Circuit and District Courts to deal with the current workload. This is provided by sections 18 and 19 of the Bill.
The number of permanent ordinary judges of the Circuit Court is being increased from 15 to 17. Provision is being made for eight Circuit Court judges to be assigned permanently to the Dublin circuit and two to the Cork circuit. At present, six judges are permanently assigned to the Dublin circuit and one judge to each of the other circuits. The number of permanent justices of the District Court is being increased from 39 to 45, in addition to the President of the District Court. I am satisfied that these changes are necessary in the interests of the efficient administration of justice in the Circuit and District Courts.
A further important proposal, in section 21 of the Bill, provides for the service of summonses by registered post in summary cases. This represents a major change in the existing law governing the service of summonses which dates back to 1851. At present, under the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, summonses must be served personally by the Garda.
The vast majority of these summonses relate to parking and other road traffic offences. The existing system of personal service dates from a time when modern developments in the law relating to road traffic offences could not have been foreseen. The present system of personal service for these types of offences is archaic in present day circumstances, but more importantly it is very costly in terms of Garda resources.
The taxpayer invests substantial sums of money in training and maintaining the Garda Síochána. It is, therefore, imperative that the manpower resources of the Garda Síochána are utilised in the most cost efficient manner to provide an effective police service to the public.
As soon as the new system of summons service is introduced it should be possible to release about 60 gardaí who are full-time engaged on summons service duties in the Dublin area for the operational police duties for which they have been trained. When the new system is operating on a nationwide basis, it should be possible to release about a further 70 gardaí outside the Dublin area for operational duties. A second major benefit from the new summons service system will be that a much improved rate of summons service is likely to be achieved, with a resultant increase in revenue to the State.
I would emphasise that the provision in the Bill for service of summonses by registered post will not replace the existing system of personal service of summonses. It is additional to the existing system of personal service, which will be retained for summonses which cannot be served by post.
Another provision in the Bill — in section 15 — will enable the Circuit Court to transfer a case to the District Court at the request of a party to an action, on the ground that it should have been commenced in that court. Where the case remitted is for unliquidated damages, the District Court will be empowered to make an award up to £10,000, that is, twice its proposed new jurisdiction limit. The High Court has power already to remit a case to the Circuit or District Court on similar grounds. Under section 4, the District Court will be empowered to hear and determine an action above its statutory limit of £5,000 where the parties to the action consent. A similar provision operates already in the Circuit Court.
It is essential, if the increases in jurisdictions provided for in this Bill are to effect a real reduction in litigation costs, that plaintiffs are encouraged to initiate their actions in the lowest court which has jurisdiction to hear them. This is also desirable from a social viewpoint, as otherwise litigants who are financially better off would have an advantage over poorer litigants. This policy is reflected in statutory provisions in courts legislation which generally limit the costs which a successful litigant may recover, in an action, to the costs appropriate to the lowest court having jurisdiction to grant the relief given.
The current provisions governing the limitation of plaintiff's costs are contained in section 17 of the Courts Act, 1981. These give a wide latitude to the courts to grant costs which are higher than the level of costs appropriate to the lowest court having jurisdiction to grant relief.
I have decided in the light of experience of the working of these provisions that further restrictions are necessary on the grant of higher costs. Accordingly, section 14 of the Bill, which substitutes a new section 17 in the 1981 Act, contains revised proposals to limit the recovery of costs by a successful plaintiff in a civil action.
Generally, I am proposing that the courts' discretion to award higher costs should be limited to cases in the High Court where damages between £25,000 and £30,000 are awarded. In such cases, Circuit Court costs only will be payable unless the judge certifies that it was reasonable, in the interests of justice, that the action should have been determined in the High Court. In the case of an action taken in the High Court, where the damages awarded are between £15,000 and £25,000, Circuit Court costs only will be recoverable and where the damages are between £5,000 and £15,000, a successful plaintiff will be entitled to recover the lesser of an amount equivalent to the damages awarded, or the amount of costs at the Circuit Court level.
A further disincentive to taking an action in a higher court than necessary is included in the provisions in the new section 17, subsection (5) of the Courts Act, 1981. The courts are being given a new discretionary power to penalise a successful plaintiff who takes an action in a court, other than the court with lowest jurisdiction, by requiring the plaintiff to pay to the defendant the equivalent of the additional costs incurred by the defendant in having to defend the action in a higher court than was necessary.
The new section 17 of the 1981 Act is more restrictive than the existing provisions and is intended to be so. It reflects the Government's determination to effect a real reduction in legal costs as a consequence of the increases in the jurisdiction of the lower courts proposed in the Bill, while at the same time providing reasonable scope to a plaintiff in deciding on the appropriate court in which to commence an action, if he is not to be penalised in relation to the amount of costs he might recover.
The changes in the jurisdiction limits of the Circuit and District Courts will come into effect one month after the passing of the Bill. Other proposals that require rules of court to be made as to procedures will come into force after three months. The proposals for increases in the Judiciary will come into effect immediately.
To sum up, the main objectives of this Bill are to make litigation in the courts cheaper and speedier and to facilitate more convenient access to the courts at local venues. This will be achieved by a doubling of the present jurisdiction limits of the Circuit and District Courts.
Future revisions of jurisdiction limits can be effected more quickly and simply by Government order under the Bill. A modern arrangement for serving summonses is being introduced which will release more gardaí for operational duties and should increase State revenue. The numbers of the Judiciary are being increased to reflect the volume of work in the courts.
I commend the Bill to the House.