Practice & Procedure
The Irish system underpinning the recovery of costs in Irish litigation is derived from British practice and systems but lags behind developments there. The basic principle is that the client is responsible for paying his or her costs and may only recover those costs in the event of winning. The corollary of the second leg of the prior sentence is that the client is responsible for ALL costs in the event of losing. That means that the client is liable […]
In everyday life we must, and try to, say what we mean. This is doubly the case in giving evidence. Look at this: QUESTION; You didn’t call out for help? REPLY: No. By this reply, the witness has now sworn that he/she DID call out for help. We see this if we express the intended reply at length – “Yes, I did not call out for help” (or, “I did not call out for help”). Counsel must be careful of […]
EMI Records [Ireland] Ltd and Ors -v- UPC Communications Ltd and Ors : Digital Rights Ireland Ltd granted leave to move Motion to Intervene as Amicus Curiae
This matter was returnable today for directions by Mr. Justice Kelly in the Commercial Court. The High Court Record Number of this matter is 2012/12381. Mr. Ronan Lupton BL, appearing on behalf of Digital Rights Ireland Ltd and instructed by McGarr Solicitors applied to the court for leave to serve a Notice of Motion, together with grounding affidavit, seeking to intervene in these proceedings as a friend of the court, or Amicus Curiae. The court set a date for the […]
If a Defendant knows that the system will deliver a judgment for the Plaintiff and knows what the compensation for the Plaintiff is likely to be only two issues remain to be vouchsafed; that the costs will increase with the passing of time and that those costs will have to be met by the Defendant.
The State parties appealed the judgment of Laffoy J. to the Supreme Court. The appeal came on for hearing before the Supreme Court on 24th October 2012 and finished that day. Judgment has been reserved.
Prior to 2004, for not less than fifty years, plaintiffs were not required to give any further details on the issue of proceedings. The plaintiff was, however, obliged to give the details to the defendant before the trial. It was, (and still is), in the plaintiff’s interest to find out those details and to communicate them to the defendant. Only when the defendant knows these things can the defendant readily agree to settle the claim. Settlement is the best outcome of personal injury litigation; there are insufficient judges to adjudicate on all or most claims for personal injury.
Legal practitioners have a solution to that; plead every conceivable item of loss and, later, waive those that do not apply. Section 10 prevents this; it requires that “full” particulars be pleaded. This implies that the plaintiff cannot issue proceedings until all these losses are accrued and known, or, as mentioned, that items not pleaded cannot later be claimed.
There are no extensions of time available for victims of medical negligence, unlike victims of road traffic accidents who get extensions of time in the Personal Injuries Assessment Board system.
It is very possible for an injured applicant to know nothing of the personal circumstances of a guilty respondent. Even the Injuries Board may know nothing of those circumstances; the Board will carry on correspondence with a lawyer or an insurance company acting for the respondent (who, in their turn, may also not know of the state of health of the respondent).
That will become more difficult without ready access, without quibble, to all the prosecution material, particularly the stuff the prosecutor deems not relevant or necessary to his/her case.