Seanad debates

Thursday, 28 June 2018

Civil Law (Missing Persons) Bill 2016: Report and Final Stages

 

10:30 am

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As I said when introducing the amendments we have just considered, my view is that presumption of death orders should be made by a court only. Other associated matters should also be dealt with by a court. I am proposing revised jurisdiction provisions in amendments Nos. 40 and 48 because, as amendment No. 40 makes clear, my view is that applications for variation orders under section 7 should be made to the High Court only. The reason for this is that such cases are likely to be extremely rare and, if they do occur, they may well give rise to difficult and often untested legal issues. The High Court will also have jurisdiction where the Attorney General or a person acting on behalf of the State is the applicant, again because of the likely rarity and, in many cases, complexity of such issues. Amendment No. 40 proposes to expand the category of persons who may apply for variation orders. The Bill provides that a formerly missing person shall be the only person who can make such an application. I am taking the opportunity to propose that an applicant may apply for a variation order. Amendment No. 48 takes account of the fact that, where land is concerned, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is determined by market value rather than the rateable valuation. The monetary threshold of the market value is currently set at €3 million. Amendment No. 48 also allows for jurisdiction based on the applicant's residence, a position which is consistent with that taken in other jurisdictions.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.