Tommy Broughan (Dublin Bay North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

797. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to legislate to reform the archaic laws of maintenance and champerty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27696/17]

Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Deputy will know, maintenance is the giving of financial assistance or encouragement to a party to litigation by a person who has neither an interest in the litigation nor any motive recognised by the law as justifying interference and champerty is an aggravated form of maintenance as it involves the support of litigation by a non-party in return for a share of the proceeds. The Statute Law Revision Act 2007 specifically retained in existence, in Irish Law, the torts and offences of maintenance and champerty.

Under current law,actions comprising maintenance and/or champerty in Ireland are considered to be contrary to public policy in that inter alia they may assist in the development of a market in legal claims thereby promoting litigation for the benefit of the promoter rather than the litigant and are considered to have the potential to create a substantial injustice to a defendant in an action. Maintenance and champerty are not permitted as a matter of Irish law regardless of the extent of the control exercised over the conduct of the litigation by the funder. On 23 May 2017 the Supreme Court confirmed, in its consideration of an earlier High Court ruling in the case of Persona Digital Telephony Ltd. and others v The Minister for Public Enterprise, Attorney General and others,that professional third party funding continues to offend against the rules of maintenance and champerty. At the same time, I am aware that the Supreme Court also took the opportunity on that occasion to raise some broader aspects of the policy approach to this area including in terms of the potential for new legislation.

I am also aware that some change has been taking place under the law in other jurisdictions and that this has generated public debate. For example, the torts and crimes of maintenance and champerty were abolished in England and Wales under the Criminal Law Act of 1967 and I am also aware that a number of States in Australia have since followed suit. In contrast, however, I note that New Zealand has favoured the retention of maintenance and champerty, a position which would be more aligned with current public policy in this jurisdiction.

Clearly, any change to public policy in relation to maintenance and champerty would require detailed and balanced consideration. I am, therefore, pleased to note the publication by the Law Reform Commission in June 2016 of its Issues Paper on "Contempt of Court and Other Offences and Torts Involving the Administration of Justice". Under Issue 6 of that paper, the Commission has opened up the retention of the crimes and torts of maintenance and champerty to public consultation along with the related question of whether third-party funding of litigation should be permitted. As with the recent judgement of the Supreme Court to which I have referred, any report and recommendations that come to be made by the Law Reform Commission in relation to maintenance and champerty will be fully considered by my Department and by the Government in due course.