Results 1,381-1,400 of 6,728 for speaker:John Curran

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: I acknowledge the detailed and specific amendment that has been tabled by Senator Regan. As I said in my opening speech, at this time the Government has limited the Bill before the House to the introduction of the protections and safeguards that were identified by the High Court in the McCann case. The Government intends to return to this subject, with the benefit of the Law Reform...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: I will confine my comments as directly and specifically as possible to many of the points raised and will deal with them in no particular order. I will conclude by responding to the key point raised by Senators Regan and Alex White. In regard to the FLAC report, the sanction of imprisonment should be removed immediately from the instalment order procedure for those who are unable to pay...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: I have listened carefully to what has been said. Without going over all the points raised, Senators' concerns relate to where a person has resources or limited resources. As I pointed out, there are a number of options in this regard, including instalment plans and mediation. I also mentioned the seizure of goods under section 8(b). Report Stage of the Bill will be taken tomorrow. I have...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: They are identical. It was a typographical error and both amendments are the same.

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: There are several issues to deal with and I will try to be as specific as possible. The possible consequences of non-appearance are addressed in section 6(2)(b) and 6(2)(c). Paragraph (b) sets out the consequences under the section of failure to comply with an instalment order, including the possibility of imprisonment. Paragraph (c) stipulates that the debtor may be arrested if he or she...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: As I said, concerns in regard to the use of clear language will be referred to the District Court rules committee. To reiterate, the proposed provision regarding information on a variation to an instalment order is not being accepted because of the necessity to ensure a balance between the interests of creditors and debtors. The Senator spoke about what happens when debtors go to court. A...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: Senator Bacik referred to sticks. It is important, when the summons is issued, that the seriousness of non-attendance is clearly identified. The Senator referred specifically to an alteration to the instalment order. In discussing mediation I failed to point out, although the matter is not strictly relevant to the legislation, that consideration is also being given to preparing an...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: An information leaflet may be different in some respects from a summons, which refers to obligations. I could be flippant and say we will send out a copy of the legislation but that would serve no purpose. An information leaflet is different from what is required in a summons notice.

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: When one listens to the discussions of the eminent legal professionals in the House, it is difficult to be sure. I understand fully the concerns that have been expressed by Senator Alex White about people who may try to avoid personal service. However, I will not accept this amendment. I will revert to it tomorrow when we talk about other forms of court service. I am specifically...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: I assure the House that I understand the issue. I want to clarify the situation in respect of those who deliberately avoid personal service in advance of Report Stage. We will deal with it then or at some other time.

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: This short amendment will strengthen this provision slightly. In effect, the use of "shall" channels the courts towards using the provisions of section 6(6), 6(7) and 6(8).

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: I thank Senators for their comments and for their support of this amendment, which provides for the use of the word "shall" to channel the courts, in effect, towards the subsections I mentioned earlier.

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: I do not propose to accept the amendment. When we discussed the issue of attachment in the context of an earlier amendment, I gave a commitment to revert to the House on the matter tomorrow.

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: No, it does not. It relates to the first amendment only. I envisage that the whole area of attachment orders etc., will be addressed in the Law Reform Commission's review. The legislation before the House is narrow in its scope. The most important point that has been made about the issue of attachment is that it is a necessary requirement. In that context, the constitutionality of the...

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: I understand where the Senator is coming from but I am advised that the amendment is unnecessary because it is already implicit in the order, where the debtor is imprisoned on foot of an order made under subsection (7)(c) or (7)(d).

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: I am advised that it is unnecessary. To include it, from the drafters' viewpoint, would not achieve greater clarity because it forces one to refer back to the previous sections.

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: The advice is still the same to the effect that it is unnecessary, and I am not accepting the amendment.

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: From the viewpoint of clarity, I do not want any misunderstanding. In reading out the phrase, the Senator added a bit that I do not have. He said, "for the avoidance of doubt, failure by a debtor to comply", whereas the amendment before me reads "Failure by a debtor to comply". I want to get clarity in that regard.

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: That is all right. I do not wish to further confuse the matter.

Seanad: Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (7 Jul 2009)

John Curran: I do not want to be accused of adding in something or taking something out. As the Senator reads the amendment, it is: "Failure by a debtor to comply with subsection (5)(a)(ii), without reasonable excuse, constitutes contempt of court, and the District Court judge may deal with the matter accordingly." I believe the objective is the same, namely, to provide a workable option for the...