This Bill has been introduced to validate certain judgments in undefended cases which were entered up in the office of the High Courts of Justice. The old practice was that in undefended cases you simply went into the appropriate office and marked judgment. New Rules of Court were introduced some time ago and it was recently decided by the High Court, in the case of Stokes v. Wilkie, that that old method had been superseded by the new Rules, and, accordingly, all judgments in undefended cases which had been entered up for the last few years were in themselves invalid because, instead of going, in the old fashion, into the office and marking judgment, they should have gone before the Master and marked judgment. Since these cases were all cases in which the plaintiff was entitled to his decree—otherwise they would not have been undefended cases—and although the legal advisers of the various parties might have been to blame to some extent, the main blame must be taken to lie with the court officials, and it appears it would be unjust that all these judgments should be set aside. This Bill is one which validates all judgments except those set aside prior to the date mentioned in it. The Bill also validates all subsequent actions which have been taken, such as seizures made by the sheriff and judgments that have been registered as judgment mortgages. All these are made good, but the Bill also says that where a judgment had actually been set aside before the passing of this Bill no punitive or exemplary damages shall be given against the sheriff or the party executing and that the money he has actually received shall be handed over and no more. The Bill went through the Dáil as an uncontested measure. It was agreed there that it would be unjust to the plaintiffs in these various actions unless these judgments were validated, and I ask the Senate to pass the Bill also as an uncontested measure.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - COURTS OF JUSTICE (No. 2) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.
May I ask whether the amendments proposed in the Dáil have been accepted? The Minister says that it was passed as an agreed measure.
One not very important amendment, a verbal one, was proposed by Deputy Ruttledge in the Dáil and accepted by me.
It covers the question of seizures already made?
That is dealt with in the Bill.
May I ask whether there have been any protests received from defendants? This has the effect of retrospective legislation. Defendants have got the advantage of a certain flaw in the legal machinery, and some of them sought to take advantage of it, but we are now proceeding to set that right. Is there any danger of an injustice being inflicted through making the Bill retrospective?
I do not think that Senator O'Farrell completely followed me. In any case in which proceedings were taken before the date mentioned in the Bill, any action taken in setting aside judgment before that stands good. It only deals with cases in which no steps have been taken to set aside judgment before the date mentioned in the Bill.