England and Wales have taken strange roads in the administration of justice, so it pays to keep an eye on the legal profession there.

What a pleasure then to discover from the new Chairman of the Bar Council [there], in his inaugural address [see it HERE] that, of former Chairmen;

Some were extraordinarily efficient at chairing meetings; some made a point of sending e-mails at 4.30a.m; some were international class gourmands; others had a wonderful oratorical facility.

Are the barristers bonkers? Did they know of the predilection to 4.30 a.m. emails and still vote for that guy? Did they think the gourmand was even going to give them tips on how to get a piece of that lifestyle?

Of course, he may well have done just that, in which case, bring him back!

It is surprising how often the willfulness of lawyers or litigants drives litigation, rather than evidence. We see an instance of this in the “theory” that William Shakespeare did not write the “Shakespearean canon” and that the plays and poems were written by, among others, Francis Bacon. This theory was first advanced by Delia Bacon in a book published in 1857.

The essential element of the book, in explaining its success, was prolixity. A work is prolix if it is too long. It is a general human failing to think that there must be substance to something if it can be written about at length.

At any length, Ms. Bacon’s book was too long.

In this vein, some solicitors and some barristers stand out for an inability to produce short affidavits. They talk all around the problem, avoiding the terms in which the opponent has defined the issues. This may be very good in principle, but it is tiresome in practice and oppressive when the prolix affidavit is sworn in the cause of big institutions, for, in truth, this is a feature of struggles with big institutions; they try to talk the problem away.

Council Regulation 41/2001, “the Brussels Regulation” decides the proper jurisdiction for the determination of disputes in the EU.

Its authors must have been chess fans, dreaming of the great games of the early twentieth century when Capablanca and Lasker dominated the game. That is, it is hoped the authors had dreams.

In a chess dream one does not want to know that Capablanca and his wife Gloria did not get on well and had affairs, even if one does want to know that he became a Cuban civil servant “…with no particular duties but to be famous and go about putting Cuba on the map”. (We have aspirants in Ireland for jobs like that, hence my inappropriate interest).

Likewise, we provide no market for books entitled “The Philosophy of the Unattainable” [Lasker].

No, indeed, chess players should be seen and not heard. They should play the game and recede into the darkness (better still, the languorous white light of the Cuban midday), when the game is finished.

That half-remembered, half-forgotten realm of austere thought seems to be the birthplace of the Regulation. The Regulation has the appearance of simplicity but it is deceptive. It has the capacity to throw up great surprises from apparently straightforward circumstances.

Who would have thought that it would favour the Irish legal profession?

What else can we conclude when we see the Regulation in action in Knight v Axa Assurances [2009] EWHC 1900 QB?

The Plaintiff was injured in a road traffic accident in France. The Defendant was the insurer of the French motorist who had injured him. Under French law the Plaintiff had a direct claim against the Defendant as insurer. That claim was for the payment of compensation, and therefore was a debt. The place of payment of debts is, generally, where the Creditor is domiciled. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was a beneficiary, under French law, of an insurance arrangement and Article 9 (1) (b) of the Brussels regulation applied.

In Ireland, we have not introduced provision for injured persons to claim against the insurers of the malfeasor who caused the loss. This provision is available in the UK and, it would appear from Knight v Axa, France.

Therefore, in Ireland, third parties (other than named beneficiaries) are not “beneficiaries” under policies and cannot invoke Article 9 (1) (b) of the Brussels regulation to issue proceedings in their home state. They have to sue here, being the place where the wrongful event happened and the defendant resides.

Some law cases are definitely more interesting than others. In 1604 Mr. Belott married Ms. Mountjoy. Her dad promised Mr. Belott a payment in return for the marriage.

That payment, it appears, was not made.

In 1612 the case of Belott v Mountjoy came before the court. Mr. Belott felt that Mr. Mountjoy had shortchanged him.

Interestingly, a witness in the case had acted as matchmaker and, presumably, knew the details of the terms of the settlement.

That witness was William Shakespeare, (“Wilm. Shaksp.”) (Shakspear?). Unfortunately, he could not remember the details of the settlement or dowry. Crucially, he did confirm there had been agreement on a settlement.

Shakespeare had been a lodger in the Mountjoy household in 1604. Belott was the Mountjoy apprentice. How he found time to act as matchmaker is a mystery; perhaps his role extended to a conversation over an evening meal after his return from the theatre. Shakespeare’s life involved acting (the ghost of Hamlet’s father, in Hamlet, for instance), playwriting and, it is believed, directing. The theatres of the time presented five or six plays a week; so Shakespeare was working, probably, six days a week as an actor, writing plays and learning his lines for the forthcoming productions.

When the Belott v Mountjoy case came on for hearing, Shakespeare was in retirement in Stratford on Avon. The court was in London. One wonders about the difficulties confronting Belott in the serving of the subpoena on Shakespeare and what playwriting these events might have produced, but for the retirement of the witness!

Football, (soccer football) is important. It embodies the need for transparency. Thierry Henry’s foul handling of the ball in the Ireland v France match is trivia, but the advancement of FIFA’s interests in having two big nations playing in the World cup final is not. Interest like that cannot be open to transparency; they run counter to the spirit of soccer football.

Ireland was punching above its weight in the game with France. When you are punching above your weight you better know it and you better aim for a knock out blow to win. A win on points will not be vouchsafed to you.

Furthermore, accept the fact of failure, having properly defined it. The failure to comprehensively eliminate France was the failure, and is only made the more painful by the antics of Brian Cowen and Martin Cullen. They will do nothing to correct FIFA’s faults.

What!
In ill thoughts again!
Men must endure/ Their going hence, even as their coming hither:/ Ripeness is all.
Come on.

-King Lear