Formerly, it was said “…every dog is entitled to one bite.”

This was a reference to the then necessity, in holding a dog owner responsible for damage done by the dog, to show the owner knew of the dog’s propensity to bite or cause damage. If the dog had bitten someone else before, the owner now knew and would be liable for the second biting or attack etd.

Since the introduction of the Control of Dogs Act 1986, this is no longer the law.

Under Section 21 of the Act, a dog owner is liable for any damage caused by the dog, without the need to prove knowledge, on the part of the owner, of the dog’s propensity to bite.

It would be a wise thing to take out insurance to cover the risk. There is no way of managing the exposure to the risk; the exposure could be very large.

If a dog owner is sued, or threatened with proceedings, in the absence of specific insurance cover for damage caused by the dog, it would be wise of him/her to have the home insurance policy checked to see if such a claim is covered by the policy.

The following letter has been sent to the Taoiseach.
****

Our Ref; EMcG/ Your Ref; 25th August 2009

Taoiseach Brian Cowen TD
Department of the Taoiseach
Government Buildings
Upper Merrion St.
Dublin 2

Re: NAMA

Dear Taoiseach,

I acknowledge receipt of the letter of 20th August 2009, from your Dept. requesting €15.00 from me.

I will send that under separate cover.

However, I protest at the demand; given the documentation I am requesting from you I believe the information in the documentation should have been put into the public domain long ago.

You are reported in the Irish Times as having cited the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund and, possibly, the European Central Bank as having advised the Government (i.e., you) to adopt the NAMA solution to Ireland’s financial woes.

The first intimation of such a claim came from the Department of Finance and referred only to the European Commission.

Those EU “consents” are, ostensibly, in accordance with the “three ts” — “temporary, timely and targeted”, all of which are a requirement of the EU for State Aid to financial institutions currently in trouble. Your NAMA plan is not, I believe, in conformity with those requirements.

The Commission has disclosed elements of its dealings with you (and others) on its website.

1. On 25th February 2009 the Commission issued guidelines to States on handling impaired assets of banks. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/322&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The guidelines of 25th February 2009 provide for “full transparency and disclosure of impairments, [which] has to be done prior to government intervention”. And again, require “… full ex ante transparency and disclosure of impairments and an upfront assessment of eligible banks”

To date, here in Ireland, this has not happened. Nevertheless the Government’s aid has already commenced. The mere declaration of an intention to grant aid, is aid, and the publication of the National Asset Management Agency Bill is aid par excellence.

The guidelines also confirm that “In general, any transfer of assets covered by a scheme at a valuation in excess of the market price will constitute State aid” [and, is therefore, illegal in principle].

A number of points arise from the foregoing;

1. The Commission does not appear to mandate values based on “real economic value”.

2. Additionally, the Commission emphasizes that “In general, all schemes must ensure that the beneficiary banks bear the losses incurred in the transfer of assets”.

3. The guidelines provide for review by the Commission of asset relief schemes [particularly the “valuation process”].

I need hardly point out to you that these issues are surely relevant to the Lisbon Treaty debate.

I urge you to seek Commission guidance on the Government’s NAMA scheme.

Perhaps you would emphasize to the Commission that;

a) the bad assets of the Irish banks are not “complex”(being, principally, land and buildings);

b) The Irish High Court has established a discount on the value of such assets of 50% (relative to the recent past) in Collins & Anor v Duffy & Anor [2009] IEHC http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2009/H290.html

Yours Faithfully,

____________________
Edward McGarr
McGarr Solicitors

The following letter is going to Taoiseach Brian Cowen TD, from this office.

Our Ref; EMcG/ Your Ref; 13th August 2009

Taoiseach Brian Cowen TD
C/O Freedom of Information Section
Department of the Taoiseach
Government Buildings
Upper Merrion St.
Dublin 2

Re: NAMA

Dear Taoiseach,

I hereby request disclosure, within the prescribed time of the information set out below. The request is made pursuant to: Directive 95/46/EEC; Regulation 1367/2006; Directive 2003/4 and The Freedom of Information Acts.

All reports (including draft or interim reports), correspondence, findings, conclusions, statements, memoranda, notes, records, report books or report forms or any other documentation arising out of or in connection with the consultations of the State with the European Union Commission relating to the establishment of the National Asset Management Agency (“NAMA”) and particularly, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, pertaining to the price or value whereunder the State may (or might) pay for assets taken, or to be taken, into NAMA.

I enclose a copy of a request to Brian Lenihan, Minister for Fianance, in the same terms. I do this to avoid duplication of effort by your respective Departments. Please liaise with him and let me have on foot of this request those documents not sent by him (in timely fashion or otherwise).

Yours Faithfully,

____________________
Edward McGarr
McGarr Solicitors

Where objections are lodged to a planning application, it is useful to bear in mind that the character (from a planning point of view) of the applicant is relevant.

Under Section 35 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), the planning authority may form the opinion that the proposed development may not be completed in accordance with the requested permission or its conditions, and base a refusal of permission on that.

It will need evidence to form this opinion. The obvious evidence would be the previous conduct of the applicant in relation to developments.

Objectors, therefore should research the past history of an applicant and the history of his/her developments and provide that evidence to the planning authority.

The editorial of the Irish Times of 1st August 2009 claims the public has “a right to know”. If there is such a right, it is so vague as to be difficult to prove it exists.

Ireland has Freedom of Information legislation that addresses the right (circumscribed) of persons to gain access to documentation under the control of some public bodies. Other legislation addresses the right (equally circumscribed) of persons to gain access to information under the control of most public and private bodies.

These rights are available, generally speaking, to the extent that the officials charged with securing them are effective and the legislation permits.

On these fronts the government has taken positive steps to weaken the legislation and the effectiveness of the officials.

This latter statement is, or should be, controversial. If it is true, it is a scandal. If it is not true its publication is a good occasion to show that, and to promote the supposed “Right to Know” claimed by the Irish Times.

It is of course, a true statement.

It is the job of the members of Dail Eireann to suppress those elements of government and public administration guilty of these positive steps.

Those members will not or cannot do this.

That is the real scandal.

The reference to a “Right to Know” is meaningless unless the public perceives the context in which such a right could, or might, exist. That context is one where Freedom of Information legislation is comprehensive and integrated; where even the suspicion of a desire to limit its effect is sufficient to end political or administrative careers and where it would be inconceivable that a salaried member of the administration would be acceptable as a watchdog of the public’s rights.