James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 17, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 7A of Act of 1961

29. Section 7A of the Act of 1961 is amended by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (6):

“(6A) Notwithstanding the generality of subsections (5) and (6), but subject to subsection (6C), in civil proceedings before the Court of Appeal, an application or appeal specified in subsection (6B) may be heard and determined by—

(a) the President of the Court of Appeal sitting alone, or

(b) any other judge of the Court of Appeal sitting alone as may be nominated for that purpose by the President of the Court of Appeal.

(6B) The following applications and appeals are specified for the purposes of subsection (6A):

(a) an application to dismiss an appeal on the basis that the appeal is—

(i) an abuse of process,

(ii) frivolous or vexatious, or

(iii) without substance or foundation;

(b) an appeal against an order for costs;

(c) an appeal against an order made pursuant to the slip rule;

(d) an appeal against an order made in respect of matters connected with the case management of proceedings;

(e) an appeal against such class or classes of order of the High Court of an interlocutory nature as may be prescribed in the Rules of the Superior Courts.

(6C) Where—

(a) the President of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) the judge nominated under subsection (6A)(b), hears an application or an appeal in accordance with subsection (6A) and it appears to him or her that it is in the interests of justice that the application or the appeal be heard by a division of 3 judges, he or she shall refer the application or the appeal for hearing by such division.

(6D) In prescribing orders of an interlocutory nature for the purposes of subsection (6B)(e), the Superior Courts Rules Committee—

(a) shall have regard to the following:

(i) the interests of justice;

(ii) the need to ensure expeditious access to justice for all parties to proceedings;

(iii) the need for the expeditious disposal of proceedings in the High Court and, in particular, proceedings in respect of an appeal against an order of the High Court of an interlocutory nature;

(iv) the need to ensure the most effective and efficient use of the resources of the Court of Appeal, and

(b) may, for those purposes, prescribe any the following orders either generally, or in respect of particular categories of proceedings:

(i) an order for discovery, including further and better discovery;

(ii) an order refusing discovery, including further and better discovery;

(iii) an order requiring the delivery of replies to particulars;

(iv) an order refusing to direct the delivery of replies to particulars;

(v) an order requiring an answer to interrogatories;

(vi) an order refusing to direct an answer to interrogatories;

(vii) an order granting an application for an interlocutory injunction;

(viii) an order refusing to grant an application for an interlocutory injunction;

(ix) an order for security for costs;

(x) an order refusing to grant security for costs;

(xi) an order granting an application to amend pleadings;

(xi) an order refusing to grant an application to amend pleadings;

(xiii) such other order of an interlocutory nature as the Superior Court Rules Committee considers appropriate having regard to the matters referred to in paragraph (a).”.”.

Amendment No. 62 permits a single judge of the Court of Appeal to hear certain specified applications and appeals. This amendment is intended to improve efficiency and reduce costs associated with the Court of Appeal and to reduce the time that is taken up by appeal hearings where there is an abuse of process, the appeal is frivolous or vexatious, is without substance or foundation and which may have been entered for the sole purpose of delay and obstruction. In addition, the following can be referred to a single judge: an appeal against an order or costs; an appeal against an order made pursuant to the slip rule; an appeal against an order made in respect of matters connected with the case management of proceedings; and an appeal against order of the High Court of an interlocutory nature as may be prescribed in the Rules of the Superior Courts. Effectively, to date, three judges of the Court of Appeal have had to sit to hear these types of applications, which, in our view, is completely unnecessary. This amendment will allow for a single judge of the Court of Appeal to hear such applications.