Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, to the House to discuss the urgent need to appoint more judges to the High Court to avoid the unnecessarily high costs currently being imposed on parties to actions by having their cases postponed from sitting to sitting without any hearing taking place. I have raised this matter because of the experience of my company a short time ago. This experience gave me a new insight into the problems of legal costs, which are a major concern to most businesses. However, this experience highlights significant inroads could be made into these costs at a relatively small expense to the State by appointing more High Court judges. What happened is typical of what happens every day at the Four Courts. The report I received from my own executive states:

It is a regular contention that the willingness of insurance companies to settle claims on an economic basis rather than fight has had the effect of pushing premiums higher for the country's businesses.

We have recently spent five days in the High Court in the Four Courts. It would appear that the bottleneck that is the High Court is the cause of this headlong rush to settle.

Eager to fight, we arrived with our solicitor, S.C., engineer, medical experts and witnesses. The Case List for the day contained 30 cases, of which we were #26. This resulted in the case not being heard that day, and being carried forward to the following day. The following day our case was superceded by the 30 cases listed for that particular day. As our case was not heard that day, it was re-listed for 2 months later.

Two months later the identical sequence of events occurred, resulting in a further loss of 3 days, and a cost of 3 days legal fees, of approximately €4,000 per day. This scale of costs will also have been incurred on the plaintiff's side.

We are therefore in the position that, without one word being heard by a judge, approx. €40,000 has been incurred in legal fees/costs directly attributable to appearances in the High Court.

In isolation, this is extremely frustrating, but if one is to examine the cost implication for Irish business as a whole it is quite alarming.

On that particular day, with 50 cases on the list, legal/other costs incurred could have amounted to 400,000. Only 4 cases were heard that day.

Due to the restricted number of judges sitting on any given day, the choice is straight-forward: settle in order to avoid returning or elect to return and incur further costs.

Currently, I understand there are 22 High Court judges in the country. 5 are assigned to Tribunals/investigations. The situation where 2 or 3 judges are sitting is no longer acceptable, given the backlog and the huge cost involved.

Apart from the cost implications, the only way to curb fraudulent and exaggerated claims is to expose them to the full rigour of the judicial process. The current position is that it is almost impossible to achieve this, due to the shortage of High Court judges sitting at any given time.

The Minister for Justice needs to follow up on his recent advertisement for Judges, and appoint a number to the High Court as a matter of urgency.

He may also wish to review the Legal calendar, as there may be an opportunity to extend the days/hours in with the Courts are in operation, in a manner not dissimilar to the recent Dáil restructuring!

Why does the Government regard the appointment of more judges as something to be done with great reluctance? Using a simple cost benefit analysis, it offers good value to the nation. I am delighted the Minister is present but I suspect he will say the passage of the PIAB legislation will resolve this problem. It will not because the PIAB will not deal with cases where liability is at issue or cases which are suspected of being fraudulent. In addition, cases that fall within the board's jurisdiction are not prevented from being taken to court subsequently and cases that go beyond the board's process are likely to be taken to a full hearing.

The President of the High Court has been reported as saying PIAB will not have a material effect on the workings of the High Court, the number of cases coming before the High Court and, accordingly, the number of cases with which the Judiciary and the High Court must deal. I welcome the PIAB legislation, which is worthy and is a step in the right direction but this other problem remains. I could not believe the number of cases that are listed and the number of witnesses on both sides who must hang around. The appointment of one or two judges would result in a significant saving.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator Quinn for giving me the opportunity to address this issue. I agree that high costs and lengthy delays restrict access to justice and drive up the cost of doing business in the State. Clearly, in our legal system, these problems cannot entirely be laid at the door of the courts. The pre-trial behaviour of the parties to the dispute also has a direct bearing. The Senator has acknowledged that appointing more judges is not in itself the full solution.

Before Christmas I had lengthy talks with the president of the High Court, Mr. Justice Finnegan, a man who is remarkably dedicated to his job and demonstrates great pragmatism. He is trying to ensure the High Court functions as well as it can. We discussed the question of the number of judges available to him in the context of the tribunals and other demands made of these judges. He will make a case to me for the appointment of more judges. I am part of a collective Government and I cannot make affirmatory noises but I am aware of the problems because I lived with the problems Senator Quinn has mentioned as a practitioner for many years and I understand fully the deep frustration felt by companies in the same circumstances as his.

That is why the Government has acted on a number of fronts to provide speedier and more cost effective solutions to personal litigants. Some element of delay is inevitable in the courts system. If we had a system under which everybody could get instant justice, Parkinson's law would apply and people would bring their litigation to that venue. The situation differs from court to court. For instance, there are few, if any, delays in the hearing of cases in the Supreme Court and, in the case of the High Court, the theory regarding personal injury actions is that one is supposed to get a trial within ten days of one's case being set down. Senator Quinn's case relates to a personal injuries action against his company and, on occasion, such cases are pushed back repeatedly because they are not reached on a particular day and the list for the next day supersedes it. The average waiting time for the hearing of a judicial review is between three and six months.

The Government is acting on a number of fronts and I do not in any sense put aside the gravamen of the Senator's call for the consideration of the appointment of more judges. I do not cast that aside but I cannot make a commitment because the collective responsibility of Cabinet requires me to make a case in order to come to a collective decision on the cost implications of such a move.

Last year, I published the heads of the civil liability and courts Bill. The gestation period is almost at an end and I hope to bring the text of the Bill to Cabinet on Tuesday next and, if I get a favourable decision, I hope to publish it next Wednesday or Thursday. The Bill is designed to address the compensation culture and to provide that false and exaggerated claims will be dismissed when detected and that people who present false testimony will be prosecuted to ensure these cases are not used as a ramp for false or exaggerated claims for damages. The court will be able to impose a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment and-or a fine. The limitation period for bringing an action will be cut from three years to one year. I hope to publish this Bill shortly.

These proposals demonstrate the determination of the Government to address the issue of insurance costs so as to ease the burden on both business and private individuals while, at the same time, ensuring genuine claimants receive proper compensation for the wrongful acts that caused them injury. I do not know whether Senator Quinn's business is self-insured but larger companies frequently take out self-insurance now.

The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Minister for Transport and myself are members of a Cabinet subgroup dealing with insurance problems. We are introducing a broad range of measures. Most people will appreciate insurance premia are on the way down for the first time this year, even in the area of employers' liability, which was considered an impossibility in the past. The Bill I hope to publish next week will accelerate that process dramatically.

Another initiative is the establishment of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. Establishment of the board should have an effect on weeding out claims which come before the courts purely for the purpose of assessing compensation where liability is not an issue. As the Tánaiste pointed out, litigation costs in personal injury cases have contributed to the high cost of insurance and genuine claimants and defendants have had to wait far too long for their cases to be settled.

I will now turn to the issue of commercial litigation, which may or may not be of interest to the Senator. Last month I was pleased to sign the statutory instrument providing for the new commercial division in the High Court. This list will deal with high value commercial cases where the value of the claim is €1 million or more. It will also deal with intellectual property cases, such as those involving patents, trademarks, copyright and designs, and commercial "passing off" claims. In addition, judicial review type cases which relate to major commercial matters are also included.

The President of the High Court has appointed a High Court judge to manage the commercial list. New fast track pre-trial procedures will apply and case management will be provided. A person will not be in a position to list their case for hearing until all the ducks are in a row. The court will have power to require parties to set out their cases in writing, thus avoiding lengthy opening speeches by counsel. Pre-trial conferences will be used to speed up hearing by identifying the core issues and the type of evidence which will be required. Witness statements will be exchanged in advance and will be capable of being used as evidence once verified on affidavit. The court will have power to make orders for electronic filing and exchange of documents and for the use in court of standardised IT formats. Progress has been made in that area but it is not much use to a defendant who, as in the Senator's case, is anxious to have a personal injuries case heard. However, it will produce a new culture in the courts system in respect of those types of cases.

With regard to planning decisions, I understand that the President of the High Court last year assigned two judges with particular expertise in the area to deal with judicial review applications relating to planning and environmental matters, with particular regard to infrastructural projects. This was done with a view to according such cases the facility of an early hearing. As soon as the parties are ready to proceed, the matter is given a date for hearing within weeks rather than months. Accordingly, the delay is largely a matter for the parties themselves in having the matter in order for hearing. The solution to this is to apply rigorous case management to such cases, which would be a matter for the presiding judge.

Given the increasing demand on the courts, I accept that there may be a need for some extra judges. I am having the matter examined at present and I am awaiting a detailed submission as to how additional judges can be deployed and how they will make a difference. As with so many other areas of Government activity, there is no point merely throwing further resources into a system that is not working. That is not to state that in order to work a system may not need more resources. I am just making the point that there are a number of things which must be done. It is not just a case of appointing more judges. I hope I will be able to return to this matter in the context of the Courts and Civil Liability Bill which I hope, with the permission of the Government, to introduce in this House.