1. They have dog trouble in the UK. See it HERE.

2. For once our Government, [which, like every other element of the State, is, rest assured, amongst the best in the world], is ahead of the UK government. Unlike the UK there is, here in Ireland, a two tier level of strict liability for damage caused by dog attack.

3. Here, under Section 21 of the Control of Dogs Act 1986 an owner of a dog is strictly liable for damage sustained by a person in a dog attack and for any injury done by a dog to livestock.

4. The effect of this is make the owner [which may mean the “occupier” in some circumstances] liable, without proof of negligence, for injury suffered by a person in a dog attack.

5. Good news for owners of livestock; they do not have to prove ATTACK by the miscreant dog, just injury to the livestock consequent on dog “doings”.

In January 2010 in Case C-456/08 the European Court of Justice found that Order 84A of the Rules of the Superior Courts was not in accordance with Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665.

The Commission had taken proceedings against Ireland over a failure by the National Roads Authority and the terms of Order 84A of the RSC.

Ireland lost on both points. The ECJ condemned Order 84A on the grounds it;

“..gives rise to uncertainty as to which decision must be challenged through legal proceedings and as to how periods for bringing an action are to be determined..”

The ECJ judgment recites a plea by Ireland that:-

“.. to date, no Irish court has dismissed, as being out of time, any action challenging a decision of a contracting authority made in the course of a public contract award procedure which was brought within the three-month limitation period but not at the earliest opportunity”.

Factually, this seems wrong, or economical with the facts.

In Danninger v Bus Atha Cliath and Deepdrill Developments Ltd. [2007] IEHC, the court recited the following:-

“Leave was sought to commence judicial review proceedings on 23rd May, 2006, approximately six weeks after the formal notification of the of the award of the contract to the notice party.”

- and then ruled on a plea that the Applicant was late, in these terms:-

“I would not hold that time began to run as and from the 3rd January, 2006, when the tender documents were received, because I would regard it as reasonable that legal advice might be obtained in relation thereto. One month seems to me to be more than adequate time in which to seek such advice. Given that there is both an opportunity and, pursuant to O. 84A an obligation, to bring proceedings “at the earliest opportunity”, I would hold that an interim application should have been made shortly thereafter. That interim application would have challenged clause 4.14 of the tender conditions and should have sought interlocutory relief.”

In Danninger the applicant applied for Judicial Review six weeks after losing the tender application process. That was within the three months time limit for applications. The court ruled that time commenced against the applicant not from the ending of the tender process but from the time the applicant knew, or ought to have known, of the grounds upon which it ultimately made its application.

That was a date (as found, by estimate, by the court) to be 3rd February 2006.

That meant that time expired on 3rd May 2006. Thus, 23rd May 2006 the date of the application to court, was twenty days too late. The court however, did not rule that the time had expired for that reason; it ruled it had expired on 3rd February 2006 because the applicant had not applied “at the earliest opportunity”.

If the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico happened in Irish waters who would be held responsible?

The question is intentionally ambiguous. It seems to refer to a functioning “administration” which would search out culprits and assign blame and punishment. It seems also to refer to the principles by which blame and perhaps punishment would be assigned.

The first aspect might lead to a rant and should be avoided; it is the second aspect to which I refer, and even that can prove contentious. Consequently, I am invoking consideration of the civil law only.

We know that BP is the lead partner in the drilling of the oil well. We know that the partnership hired an oil drilling platform, and crew, from Transocean. It also engaged Halliburton, as engineers, to pump cement slurry into part of the oil well structures to contain oil.

If damage is caused to a third person during a BP-like operation in Ireland, that person would look to the law of negligence and nuisance to found a claim for compensation. The burden of proving negligence would lie on the injured person. It can be anticipated that the BP partnership would plead that it hired competent independent contractors and that, in standard Irish legal principles, it is not liable for damage caused by any negligence of those contractors.
The Plaintiff would, understandably, reject this. Some obligations cannot be delegated, particularly if they are risky. Drilling an oil well under the sea is risky, particularly at a depth of a mile.

The Plaintiff would still have to prove negligence. If the cause of the accident is to remain unknown, the Plaintiff might be in trouble. (In the BP incident, this is the significance of the admission Barack Obama extracted from BP; proof of negligence need not now be addressed by claimants in civil negligence claims against the BP partnership.)

In Ireland, there would be no admission of liability by a Defendant like BP. Faced by the formidable problems in proving liability in negligence, an Irish Plaintiff would look to the law of nuisance for success. Nuisance is a tort of strict liability. A Plaintiff does not need to prove “fault” to win. He simply needs to prove the source of the damage and that the Defendant was the source.

A leaking oil well is a public nuisance. If the oil damages the property of others the Defendant drilling the well is strictly liable.

Proof of loss from such a source would, itself, require to be sophisticated. Proving loss of profit is not easily done, but would be easy in comparison to the obstacles Plaintiffs commonly have to face in Ireland to hold powerful interests to account.

This blog has proposed a remedy for fraud of public funds in the past (see HERE for an instance).

We see a commendation in similar terms from Professor Donal Byard of New York in the Irish Times (HERE).

Now we need only await the usual sullen silence by way of response.

The High Court is seeking submissions from the parties to the Digital Rights Ireland case. See the Pleadings HERE.

The Court is seeking suggestions as to the form of questions to be submitted to the European Court of Justice. DRI has, in its Statement of Claim, suggested a form of question or questions to be submitted. Clearly, the High Court is not convinced that the form of question suggested by DRI is exactly right (or is seeking the assent of the State to DRI’s form of question). The hearing next Wednesday will show us which is the case.

DRI’s case is brought in its own name, but it is an action with implications for every citizen of Ireland, whether they know it or not.

For this reason McGarr Solicitors have published DRI’s pleadings on the Web since 2006. This is reasonable; the Respondents are, in effect and name, the State. The issues are public law issues and there can be no prevailing claim to privacy on those issues from these Respondents. It is worth noting that it is not common, to put it at its lowest, to see pleadings of current proceedings published but there is usually an exception to every rule and we have one here.

Between now and next Wednesday we will re-formulate the questions to go to the ECJ. These questions will form part of the Order of the Court making the reference to the ECJ. We currently estimate a two year wait to get a hearing in the ECJ. Delay is inevitable; every Member State of the EU has a right to intervene and be heard in the matter. That implies that every Member State must receive a copy of the Questions and the parties’ submissions.

1. I have lost my savings in an investment with XXX Building Society. What can I do?

It depends on the facts. Deposits in a Building Society or a Bank are protected by the Government guarantee. Even with the collapse of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society, the depositors with those institutions were secured and the deposits are available to be withdrawn. (In reality, all the deposits were lost in those institutions; it is the taxpayer who is replacing your lost deposit).

2. My savings were not a deposit when they lost their value. Can I still do something?

Other forms of “saving” are not as protected. If you purchased a bond it may be tied to general market values in say, the property market. The terms of the bond may govern your exposure to that risk.

3. I did not know of the risk when I bought the bond. Does that matter?

Yes, it matters a great deal. Only an unsophisticated investor would not have appreciated the risk; even so, the documentation given to you would have told you of the risk. However, if what you say is true, it shows you were an unsophisticated and vulnerable consumer. A consumer, at law, is not bound by unfair terms (or prohibited practices).

4. What is an unfair term or prohibited practice?

An unfair term is one falling into the definition of that phrase in SI 27/1995 as amended by SI 307/2000.

SI 27/1995 says:-

“…a contractual term shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and all circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and all other terms of the contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.”

5. What does that mean?

It depends on the facts of the case. Pay particular attention to Paragraph 2 of the 3rd Schedule of Statutory Instrument 27/1995. Sub-paragraphs g), j) and l) of Paragraph 1 of the 3rd Schedule do not apply to:-

“…transactions in transferable securities, financial instruments and other products or services where the price is linked to fluctuations in a stock exchange quotation or index or a financial market rate that the seller or supplier does not control;”

6. Is that a reference to prevailing property market values?

It would appear not. (The Stock Exchanges do not maintain a direct “property index”). Furthermore, that limitation only applies to transactions “… where the price is linked…”. If the price of the transaction is not so linked, the limitation is not relevant.

7. What about prohibited practices. What are they?

They are listed in Section 55 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007. You should carefully read Section 55 (1) (t), which reads:-

“(t) making a representation to a consumer that is inaccurate to a material degree in respect of market conditions, or in respect of the possibility of finding a product, with the intention of inducing the consumer to purchase a product at conditions less favourable than normal market conditions;”

That indicates that any aggrieved “investor” should explore what were the normal market conditions at the time of “purchase” and compare them with the conditions represented to him/her. (All of this is a reference to misleading information given to the investor, not a reference to better terms being available elsewhere). So, if the consumer is misled into thinking that a bond is as safe as a deposit, that is a prohibited practice. Or if the consumer is misled into thinking that a bond is the same as a deposit but with a higher interest return, that is a prohibited practice.

8. I thought only consumers who bought “goods” as opposed to “services” were protected by the Consumer Protection Act?

You were mistaken. It applies to the supply of goods and services. The Act says:-

“” product ” means goods or services;”

9. If I can prove I was misled do I escape from the loss?

Possibly. Read Section 43 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007. Section 43 (1) provides:-

“43.- (1) A commercial practice is misleading if it includes the provision of false information in relation to any matter set out in subsection (3) and that information would be likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision that the average consumer would not otherwise make.”

Sub-section (3) (iv) refers to “…its benefits or fitness for purpose;” In short, if the consumer informs the trader of his or her purpose, the trader will be misleading the consumer if the product is sold avowedly for that purpose and it does not serve the purpose. Needless to say, if the consumer is misled as to the fitness for purpose of the investment, the consumer cannot make an appropriate transactional decision. There are many instances of misleading practices in the Section. The more instances that apply to any case, the greater the chance of prevailing in the struggle to get compensation.

10. What about the obligations on financial services practitioners to comply with SI 60/2007. Surely that is of assistance to consumers?

Possibly it is. To be sure, a consumer should always insist that the trader confirm, in writing, that it subscribes to, and complies with, the provisions of that Statutory Instrument (SI 60/2007). The Statutory Instrument embodies the regulations to which banks etc. are obliquely referring when they say in their advertisements that they “… are regulated by the Financial Regulator”. (We now know that the Financial Regulator was not regulating them). By procuring the reference in writing, the consumer will, without the possibility of contradiction or denial, get the benefit of the provisions of SI 60/2007 through the application of Section 45 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act 2007.That Section reads:-

“45.- (1) A commercial practice is misleading if-
(a) it involves a representation that the trader abides, or is bound, by a code of practice,
(b) the representation referred to in paragraph (a) would be likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision that the average consumer would not otherwise make, and
(c) the trader fails to comply with a firm commitment in that code of practice.”

11. Surely the Financial Regulator will look after me?

No. He may prosecute the offender, but he will not look after a consumer.

12. What about the Financial Services Ombudsman? Will he look after me?

He may, but be ready to urgently apply to the High Court in the event he makes a finding adverse to your interests. Under Section 57CI of the Central Bank Act 1942 as inserted by Section 16 of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act 2004, the adjudication of the Ombudsman is binding on a complainant. There is, according to the Ombudsman’s office, only 21 days from the date of the decision (not the date the Complainant learns of it) to lodge the appeal in the High Court. This is very inadequate and calculatedly so. See the substantial review of the Ombudsman process in the High Court JR decision relating to Enfield Credit Union and J & E Davy HERE.

13. Do I have to go through the Financial Services Ombudsman’s procedure?

No. You can litigate directly with the financial services provider in the appropriate court.

14. Is there an advantage in going to the court directly?

Yes. As noted by the High Court judge in the Enfield v Davy case, the court will not substitute its judgment for the decision of the Ombudsman. Consequently, if that High Court view of the legislation is correct (it may not be), a Complainant will lose the control over the complaint that litigation will give and will cede control to the Ombudsman, whose procedures may turn out to be cavalierly informal.

15. Is there a disadvantage in going to court directly?

Yes. It is much more expensive than the Ombudsman’s process. However, that disadvantage may be offset by the fact that the case will be heard in open court. The Ombudsman’s procedure is dealt with in private. It will often be well worth the extra expense to control the procedure and have the case heard in public. Furthermore, the application of consumer legislation is likely to be more rigourous in a court than in the Ombudsman’s process.

THE HIGH COURT
2006 No. 3785P
Between
DIGITAL RIGHTS IRELAND LIMITED
Plaintiff
And
THE MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GARDA SIOCHANA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Defendants
UPDATE (21/4/2010)
1. Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. has taken a case against the Irish Government as seen HERE.
2. McGarr Solicitors act for Digital Rights Ireland Ltd.
3. DRI brought an application to the High Court to seek a ruling from the ECJ on an EU law issue. The State responded with its motion challenging DRI’s right to bring the proceedings. The Irish Human Rights Commission applied for leave to make submissions in the proceedings. These Motions were heard in the High Court in July 2008.
4. Judge McKechnie reserved judgment on those issues before the Court.
5. The Plaintiff has asked the Court to refer the issue of the validity of Directive 2006/24/EC to the ECJ. The State had brought this question to the ECJ. (The hearing began in the ECJ the very morning the Motions opened before Judge McKechnie). The Plaintiff endorsed the State case but went further; it says the Directive is not valid, not simply on procedural grounds, but on substantive grounds of breach of human rights and the fundamental law of the EU. This was a very important difference between the State and the Plaintiff on the Directive point.
6. The State asked the Court to deny locus standi to the Plaintiff and, in default of success on that request, asked that the Court order the Plaintiff to furnish security for costs to the State. Judgement on these points had also been reserved.
7. The case was mentioned before Judge McKechnie on 25th March 2010 on which occasion he indicated he would deliver his reserved judgment on 21st April 2010.
8. On 21st April 2010 Judge McKechnie informed Counsel for the Applicant and the State that he intended to deliver his judgment on 30th April 2010.

This blog has not been silent on negligence by auditors. See HERE and HERE and a suggested remedy to deal with major frauds HERE.

Every audit will follow a plan. If there is no plan, that’s evidence of negligence. The plan will show whether or not the auditor did his/her job properly. Of course if the “auditee” posts sudden enormous losses, that is evidence that there was a major problem in the auditee. Why did the audit not pick up those losses?

A profitable area for examination would the valuations of assets furnished to the auditee. Those valuations may have been provided by “independent” agents (auctioneers), commissioned either by the auditee or a third party. If those valuations were radically wrong that is a basis for litigation against the valuer to recover the loss arising from the deal or property which was the subject of the negligent valuation.

However, an auditor is obliged to take account of the possibility of fraud. Just because a valuation is on a file from an “independent” agent the auditor is not relieved of his/her obligation to consider whether the accounts show a true and fair view of the fiinances of the entity being audited. The fraud may be in the valuations.

Sometimes it is difficult for lawyers to recognize who is the boss.

In Kerr v Molloy and Sherry (Lough Egish) Ltd. [2006] IEHC 364, the defendant contended that the Plaintiff, a contract packer, was more experienced than his then supervisor, an assistant Operations manager and was therefore responsible for the accident in which he was injured. In fact he was working with the supervisor and gave evidence that he believed that the boxes they were stacking were improperly stacked and had informed the supervisor of this. The boxes fell on the Plaintiff. The defendant contended the Plaintiff should have refused to continue the work in the light of his perception. The judge said of this:

“At the hearing of this action, the claim of contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff was advanced on a single ground, that the Plaintiff had more experience in stacking these boxes in containers than Mr. O’Donoghue, so that, even though Mr. O’Donoghue was Assistant Operations Manager of the first named Defendant and, the Plaintiff a contract packer provided by the second named Defendant, the Plaintiff ought to have refused to continue with the work when Mr. O’Donoghue, for whatever reason, continued to build up the row of boxes without staggering the vertical spaces between the individual boxes. I find that the evidence did not support the contention that Mr. O’Donoghue had less experience in this work than the Plaintiff, so that he should be regarded as the helper and the Plaintiff found to be the person in charge of the operation. Mr. O’Donoghue’s own evidence clearly demonstrated that he had ample knowledge and very considerable experience of stacking these boxes in containers. In cross examination Mr. O’Donoghue accepted that he would not expect the Plaintiff to challenge him on any aspect of the job. The Plaintiff protested that having pointed out to Mr. O’Donoghue the possible danger involved in stacking the boxes in the manner in which he was doing it, he could hardly be expected to leave the job and go across to the office and complain to Mr. Bannigan, the Operations Manager. I find that it would be wholly unreasonable to expect the Plaintiff to do this.”

What is often overlooked on these occasions is the effect of a finding of breach of statutory duty against an employer.

On this point the judge said:

“In the Plenary Summons and in the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff pleads his case both in negligence at common law and for breach of statutory duty pursuant to the provisions of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989 and, in particular s. 6 and the Fifth Schedule of that Act. I find that the Plaintiff was not guilty of contributory negligence in relation to his claim based upon breach of statutory duty and is therefore entitled to succeed in full against the first named Defendant. It is unnecessary for the court in these circumstances to go on to consider the position in relation to his alternative claim based upon negligence at common law.”

This is a standard outcome of claims against employers by employees.

Readers will have seen reference HERE to a plea in a medical negligence case as to the meaning of a “consent” signed by the patient (who was having an operation to make her sterile).

In Fitzpatrick v National Maternity Hospital [2008] IEHC 62 the Defendant claimed that the mother (in labour) declined an episiotomy or a forceps-assisted birth (leading to the damage to the infant). The court rejected this plea, and rejected the evidence of the Defendant, intended to evidence it.

In fact the evidence from the defendant was unequivocal; it alleged the parents had each rejected the offered treatment in circumstances where the staff said…

“…they could not be responsible for the consequences for her or her baby.”

… if the mother did not agree to the proposed actions.

The court said:

“I find on the evidence that Senior Midwife O’Dwyer did not, nor did Dr. Wiza, nor indeed did Staff Midwife Murphy (though on the evidence it was hardly her place to do so given the presence of the others) explain the severity of the plaintiff’s condition to either Mrs. Fitzpatrick or Mr. Fitzpatrick at any time prior to the birth of the plaintiff. I cannot imagine how it could be legitimately stated that this couple were extremely difficult to deal with in labour. I have already found that they were encouraged to and did formulate a birthplan which was given to and discussed with Staff Midwife Murphy on Mrs. Fitzpatrick’s admission to the labour ward, who then brought Senior Midwife O’Dwyer into the discussion.”