No, they will not. This is human nature and also implied in the social arrangements under which we live.

2. Will the Injuries Board ensure that my interests are fully looked after?

No, it will not. It has a limited focus. It only addresses one question; the level of compensation the injured person ought to get. It does little to ensure that you will actually get your compensation.

3.         How can that be?

An injured person will get nothing unless he/she can prove, if necessary, that some other person has been at fault and that the injury results from that fault. The Injuries Board expressly excludes consideration of fault.

4.         Surely that’s a good thing?

Yes, if the person who injured you expressly admits the fault.

5.         Will that happen in the Injuries Board system?

No, it never comes up for mention.

4.         Who will look after my interests, then?

You will.

5.         How do I do that?

By fully understanding what is implied in the Injuries Board system.

6.         What is implied in the Injuries Board system?

The Injuries Board system exists to ensure that any legal costs incurred by you as a result of your injury will be borne by you and not by the person who injured you.

7.         Is that true?

Not completely. That’s how the Injuries Board started out, but it has changed its mind. It now makes an effort to make your opponent pay for your legal representation, or some of it, if you, the injured person, are a vulnerable person.

8. I have been injured. Am I not vulnerable by that fact alone?

No, not in the view of the injuries board. In the view of the person from whom you are trying to extract compensation, or his/her insurance company, yes, you are vulnerable, but that is advantageous to them and they owe you no duty to reduce your vulnerability.

9.         I am inexperienced in these matters. Am I not vulnerable by that fact, then?

No, not in the view of the injuries board.

10.       What is a vulnerable person, in the view of the Injuries Board?

Someone who needs legal advice to make the application to the Injuries Board.

11.       But surely no such advice is necessary?

The Injuries Board thinks it is sometimes. If you are a vulnerable person.

It is worth bearing in mind that the plaintiffs will have successfully overcome many difficulties. They will have established that their defendant breached any number of duties owed to them. (See HERE for the Health & Safety Authority’s Guidance on Manual Handling of Loads. Breach of the Regulations referred to in the Guidance is a breach of a statutory duty; negligence aside, to breach the Regulations is sufficient to trigger a liability. Claims arising from back and similar injuries are some of the most intractable faced by lawyers and judges).

The legal industry in Ireland is small. It is a certainty that “Santa’s Grotto” heard of his new nickname and was intended to hear of it. It was, objectively, calculated to curb his “excesses” in the award of damages to personal injury plaintiffs.

It is an issue of interest to know which of these persons, the judge or the barrister, was right about the value of personal injury claims, but it is much more timely to ask; with a barrister like that strutting his stuff, how can any reasonable person think that Ireland has or had an “Independent Legal Profession”?

Sure, he was independent of the judge, but whose spokesperson was he?

In the provision of services to public authorities there is an exception to the obligation to place the business out to tender; the exception is legal services. This is why Government and State agencies can, without a blush, allocate substantial earning opportunities to the big Dublin firms of solicitors (some more than others) even where the work is not very esoteric or specialised. It is ridiculous to suggest that these firms are “independent”.

Consequently, the legal profession is not independent. Asserting it is does not make it so.

This means that confusion as to who is or is not an employee need not deprive an injured person from securing proper compensation when injured in a workplace.

The employers duty includes ensuring:

That the employer provide employees with the necessary machinery and tools to complete the job. Those tools and machines are to be maintained in a safe condition.

The workplace must be kept in a safe, tidy condition with floors, doors and gates clean and clear and free from hazards.

The employer is vicariously for the negligence of his/her employees, so a worker injured by the negligence of a fellow worker is entitled to compensation from the employer.

Employees working at a height are protected by S. I. No. 318/2006 – Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Work at Height) Regulations 2006.

Taken literally, we can confidently say that it is a universal social principle that compensation be paid where loss is suffered and the liability to pay for that loss lies with someone other than the victim.

This formulation is very wide; it will cover cases of injury arising from negligence, say, (See HERE for a treatment of Tort law in common law jurisdictions) but also claims for indemnity under an insurance contract.

The principle is not undermined by individual failures in making payment.

Taken with the provisions of domestic law a regional example of that universal principle is to be found in the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6).

We are now, unfortunately, familiar with some compensation principles which, by arcane means, apply when banks fail. Certain creditors of such banks are compensated for their losses arising from default. The compensation is so certain that the default is scarcely admitted and is, for practical purposes, imperceptible. By those arcane means the liability to pay the compensation is passed to the citizens of the country responsible for supervising the failed bank. (The arcane means are not legally binding means).

It was always clear that the phrase “compo culture” was not an attempt to deny any compensation to any and all claimants; it was directed against one small class of persons, those persons who had been personally injured by negligence or breach of statutory duty. In effect, it was a brazen effort, if taken literally, to repudiate the obligation on wrongdoers of remedying the losses they had inflicted on others.

Life is complicated; consequently it has come about that the liability to pay compensation for personal injury frequently rests on both a liability in negligence and a liability under a contract of insurance. We see this in Domican v AXA Insurance Ltd. [IEHC] 2007 where the judge remarked that the plaintiff and the defendant had a relationship with each other (arising from the fact that the defendant had agreed to insure and indemnify a person whom the plaintiff claimed had injured him through negligence). In the UK that relationship is expressed in a civilized way in the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010.

Ireland has no such legislation (and no proposals to remedy the situation). The UK made such provision as far back as 1933.

The Irish State has a very poor record in defending the constitutional right to compensation for personal injury. That should come as no surprise when we reflect on the reason why the Minister for Defence (and Ireland consequently) became liable to compensate soldiers in what was known as “the Army deafness cases”. A civil servant had consciously decided not to make provision to protect the hearing of soldiers from exposure to loud and damaging noise. That decision was recorded and the record was obtained by the claimant soldiers, all of whom could show they suffered hearing loss or damage following that decision. (Even without the decision the State would have been liable; it was not a novelty that loud noise is dangerous). The reason for the poor record is straightforward; Ireland clearly has (or had) a very poor quality of civil servant and politician. (In the Irish Times of 11^th December 1997 a headline read; “Smith says deafness claims are wrong and immoral”. Smith was the Minister for Defence.)

It is generous to say Ireland’s record is poor on this issue. Ireland is malevolent on the point. See HERE and HERE for this writer’s opinions.

Sometimes, counsel’s opinion is just plain wrong. Of course, sometimes clients get what they insist on having. From the outside it is not always easy to see what caused the disaster, as in MMP gmbh v Antal  International Network gmbh.

According to the judgment the Plaintiff was alerted to the danger of advancing the case for compensation on a basis of a reduction in value of the corporate plaintiff itself.

When that proved unpersuasive, the evidence adduced on quantum was discounted and the court was left without any evidence on which to base an alternative claim. In effect, the plaintiff won on liability and lost on quantum.

All duck or no dinner!

In such a spirit, can Judge Kelly’s remarks about the lack of a mechanism to recover excess tolls (if such they be) charged on the M1 motorway, fail to provoke the attentions of our benefactor Mr. KenMore?

Once again, the remedy for such social ills is to hand; introduce forms of proceedings in court called Multi-Party Actions. These are commonly called “class actions”. They permit a plaintiff to commence proceedings against a defendant, not just for his/her own benefit, but for the benefit of a class of persons, the plaintiff being just one.

This could be done relatively easily and quickly. The missing ingredient is, and was, political will. Nothing else is missing.

You will shortly be Taoiseach. I know that my voice is not foreign to you. I have an accent (metaphorically speaking) like Dermot Gleeson SC. That should alarm you but I know it will not. This is not because you are schizophrenic (which you are), but because, in your field, you need to keep talking and the explication of process uses a lot of words. Lawyers can elaborate process and consequently generate words. Like an oasis in the desert they seem to offer life (political life, in your case) allowing you to hold the floor, to occupy space of every kind, but principally space in the minds of others.

There is no guarantee that this is of value of the listeners. Perhaps you disregard this, at least for a time. That is a mistake. Before he was chairman of Allied Irish Banks Dermot Gleeson SC was legal advisor to Michael Noonan, who was brought to the point where he said he would eschew legal advice if he had his life (political, again) to live over. Maybe he will (eschew legal advice AND live his [political] life over again).

The mere occupation of space is a miserable ambition. Look at the outgoing government.

This letter is to ask you to repudiate what is graphically currently known as “stuff”. Stuff is process; it is the surface. It is the shiny trivia of life.

I propose that you look instead to principles not process. I know nothing of the principles of banking beyond what commonsense might suggest to me. I do, however, know something of what is fair and I write this letter to suggest that you commit to fairness in this election. Fixing a bank will not secure fairness, but fairness, in principle, is a requirement to secure good banking.

Here are some easy reforms to bring fairness to the people of Ireland;

A) Restore the limitation period for personal injury plaintiffs from two to three years;

B) Repeal the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act of 2003;

C) Repeal the provisions of S. 10 of the Courts and Civil Liability Act 2004;

Michael McDowell SC wanted to reduce the limitation period for personal injury plaintiffs from three years to one year. Arguably three years is unfair; in matters of contract the period is six years, but I am not urging that you decide on that; just that you bring it back to three years. For many injured people it is no difficulty to take action within three years of their being injured, but there are many exceptions. On a question such as this, every effort should be made to ensure that nobody is shut out of justice. To close the door of the Four Courts (yes, it happened, literally) to injured plaintiffs is to favour reckless free riders over innocent people who have no social organization to represent them.

REFORM 1: Why should the limitation period be three years rather than two?

ANSWER: A limitation period exists to protect society from old stale claims. If a claim is old and stale a defendant may be unable to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff due simply to the passage of time. If matters had been addressed in speedy fashion a defendant might be able, by evidence, to show that it is not liable for the plaintiff’s injury or that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent to a high degree. However, this is hypothetical. Most cases of personal injury (car crashes etc.) are immediately known to a wide circle of people, including the “defendant”. In those circumstances the plaintiff’s delay is irrelevant to the defendant’s ability to defend itself.

On the other hand, a plaintiff needs time to start his/her proceedings. There are many obstacles to a plaintiff in this regard. The injury incapacitates the plaintiff; he or she cannot get the time, energy or opportunity to instruct a solicitor. The plaintiff may have money problems. The plaintiff, compared to the defendant, will often know less of the injurious event than the defendant. The plaintiff needs time to gather the evidence.

This point is seen in the extreme in cases of medical negligence. The courts have opined that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to issue proceedings in medical negligence cases without the back-up of an expert’s report confirming the negligence. How long does it take to get that? It can only be sought after the medical records have been received from the putative defendant. Thus, for such a plaintiff, gathering the evidence requires force of character; the recovery of medical records; the choice of expert to advise on the issues and the receipt of an opinion written, often, by a busy professional to a very high standard. None of these things can happen quickly.

The choice should not be between two years and three years, but between three years and some longer period.

REFORM 2: Why should the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 be repealed?

ANSWER: There are several reasons;

a) PIAB favours defendants; the system is mandatory for plaintiffs and voluntary for defendants;

b) PIAB generates delay for a plaintiff in the resolution of his/her problems;

c) PIAB facilitates the decay or dispersal of evidence exclusively in circumstances that favour the defendant and hamper the plaintiff.

d) PIAB is becoming irrelevant save to the extent of the effects referred to at a), b) and c) above.

REFORM 3: Why should the provisions of S. 10 of the Courts and Civil Liability Act 2004 be repealed?

ANSWER: It hinders the issuing of proceedings for personal injury in timely fashion. Compliance with S. 10 requires the injured plaintiff to gather substantial quantities of evidence and instruct lawyers relating to same, before issuing proceedings. A Personal Injury Summons is a substantial lengthy document and not readily compiled at speed. In lawyers’ language, could anything be more calculated to favour defendants compared to (personal injury) plaintiffs? For upwards of fifty years before 2004, court rules permitted the quick issuing of a Plenary Summons for a personal injury claim. Thereafter, the plaintiff had to serve a Statement of Claim with proper details of the claim pleaded. However, any delay in so doing was amenable to control by the court; it was not subject to the severest sanction – the expiration of the statute of limitation period. It is that sanction that now hovers over every personal injury plaintiff and is brought closer by the provisions of S. 10.

1. Warned Builders of the difficulties clients may present when you seek payment.

2. Warned Builders of the problems inherent in the practice of the client holding “retention money” as a security for the builder fixing any problems arising later.

3. Warned of the difficulties flowing from undertaking building work without a written contract;

4. The problems for clients when builders “buy” a contract and re-negotiate it to their advantage later, after they have started work.

5. Warned again of the difficulties flowing from undertaking building work without a written contract;

Now we write about the steps you must take when you don’t get paid. Most building or engineering contracts will have an Arbitration clause in some form or other. If so, it will be mandatory that the dispute be taken to arbitration. Get the help of a solicitor or a “claims consultant” to draft the papers for the arbitration. Depending on the nature of the dispute it might take a long time to produce workable drafts but it is essential work.

When the identity of the arbitrator is agreed he/she can give directions as to how the parties should proceed. It is wise for claimants to have anticipated the production of workable drafts.

The conduct of an arbitration by the claimant or the respondent is like the conduct of litigation; it needs the services of a litigator.

If a respondent is still trading (not in liquidation) it is open to the claimant to take the claim to arbitration with some prospect of making a recovery.

What if the solicitor dies?

What will happen to your litigation, say?

Possibly, nothing adverse. If your solicitor was in a partnership, another partner will continue running the action. (This might be a benefit rather than a disadvantage; not all solicitors are talented).

If your solicitor was a sole practitioner you are in trouble. You will need to change solicitors. (Strictly speaking, this is untrue; on the death of your sole practitioner solicitor you do not have a solicitor). You will need to find a new solicitor.

That solicitor will need to negotiate the transfer of the file. This might be straightforward or it might not be. See HERE about solicitors’ liens.

Once possession of the file is lost, so is the lien. When the file comes into the possession of the new solicitor he/she may file a Notice of Change of Solicitor in the Central Office of the High Court. There is a stamp duty on the Notice of €22.00.

The solicitor then serves this on the solicitor of the opponent and proceeds with the litigation.

It must be borne in mind that the reporting of issues like this, in the UK or in Ireland, is always of a low quality. The journalists are invariably fully paid up members of some lobby group or other. The current dominant lobby group in the UK is the Conservative party, the principal party in the UK coalition Government.

Britain and Ireland have similar legal systems. “Similar” implies there are differences, and indeed there are. A very practical difference is the attenuated Irish system of State assistance for civil legal costs, compared with the UK system.

In Ireland, family law aside, there is, effectively, no State assistance to pay for civil legal costs. This means that an Irish resident must find the money to pay for lawyers from his or her own resources. Or, he or she must suffer a possible injustice in the absence of legal advice or representation.

It is worthwhile to contemplate what is meant by the phrase “legal advice”. In practice it might be the equivalent, metaphorically speaking, of a radio conversation from air traffic control to a lay passenger in an aircraft, guiding the passenger in the use of the controls and the method for bringing the aircraft to a safe landing on the runway. The chances of a crash are very high and if a pilot could be delivered to the aircraft it would be better.

Flying an aircraft is a learned skill. It costs money to learn the skill and to keep abreast of developments in aircraft design. In short, if the lives of passengers or the preservation of aircraft or property is a recognised goal it is necessary to make social arrangements to have a system that will produce pilots and pay them to land aircraft. Without that system it would be necessary to restrict or prohibit the use of aircraft.

On this view of matters, the UK favours the use of aircraft (meaning resort to legal principles and vindication of rights); Ireland restricts such use.

The UK, to encourage lawyers to work for plaintiffs who have insufficient funds to pay for personal injury litigation, introduced “conditional fee arrangements”. These are also known as “no win, no fee” agreements. If the plaintiff wins the action the unsuccessful defendant will pay the plaintiff’s lawyers. This alone was not a novelty; it is a principle (usually adhered to) that a losing litigant must indemnify the winning litigant against the winner’s legal costs of the litigation. This principle is intended to suppress unreasonable litigation. (It works, assuming litigants and lawyers are reasonable. Sometimes they are not.) In the UK this was implicitly seen as shifting a social burden (funding the vindication of rights) onto lawyers. For the lawyers this was a voluntary burden and they were only willing to take it up if they were paid for it. The pay was to be in the form of an enhanced fee if they were successful. This was seen as reasonable: they were carrying the costs of unsuccessful cases. The unsuccessful defendant, of course, paid the enhanced fee. This was seen as fair; the defendant could always limit his costs by not litigating. (As a practical matter, it can be always assumed a personal injury plaintiff has suffered a loss. It can also be assumed that the chosen defendant was very closely associated, at least, with that loss).

Ireland has established a very elaborate structure to facilitate some defendants who wish to limit their costs by not litigating; it set up the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. (“PIAB”). This also addresses a “social burden”. For the UK the social burden is the vindication of Plaintiffs’ rights; for Ireland it is the vindication of Defendants’ rights.

This judgment is broadly correct despite readily found exceptions. (Ireland expressly safeguards the rights of injured persons; the UK readily undermines their claims).

The legal system does not exist in a vacuum. It reflects society. It is pointless (and wrong) for a millionaire to sue a homeless person in a dispute about the ownership of a coat. Even if the millionaire is in the right, the cost of the litigation will outweigh the value of the coat. However, nobody (excepting the millionaire) would think it pointless, or wrong, for a homeless person to sue a millionaire about the ownership of a coat.

The UK, formerly, would facilitate a homeless person in those circumstances; Ireland did not and will not. The UK is now proposing that the coat be shared between the homeless person and his/her lawyers, to pay for the cost of the litigation. Now, the value of the coat will again determine whether there is to be a vindication of rights.

Real justice would recognise the inequality of arms in this struggle. The formal equality of litigants is often illusory. Lawyers know this and act accordingly.

So, we are back to the lawyers.

TO BE CONTINUED…