• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Courts Bill 2013 - Increase in Jurisdictions


kbar2011

Active member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
212
It appears that the Government have decided at long last to increase the jurisdictions of the District and Circuit Courts. The following are the relevant extracts from the Press Release on the Department of Justice website:-

"The Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Mr Alan Shatter T.D., today announced the publication of the Courts Bill 2013.

The Bill has two purposes ... The second purpose of the Bill is to increase the monetary jurisdiction limits of the Circuit and District Courts in civil proceedings ...

As regards the jurisdiction limits of the courts, the Bill proposes to change the monetary limits on the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and District Court in civil proceedings to €75,000 and €15,000 respectively. However, in personal injury actions, the revised monetary jurisdiction limit of the Circuit Court will be €60,000 ...

Making the announcement, the Minister said ... "The proposed changes to the jurisdiction limits of the Circuit and District Courts should ultimately lead to a reduction in the burden of legal costs for individuals and companies involved in litigation. It is crucial that parties involved in legal conflict do not incur more legal costs than are necessary in circumstances in which they have to resort to litigation. It is also important that our court jurisdictions keep substantially in line with inflation and that our higher courts are not unnecessarily overburdened with appeals that could and should be properly dealt with at a lower level. The extension in the jurisdiction of the District Court will result in a portion of litigation presently undertaken in the Circuit Court in the future being dealt with at District Court level. The changes will also result in a proportion of litigation presently being conducted in the High Court in the future being dealt with at Circuit Court level. Over time, this should effect a reduction in the number of appeals that have to be dealt with by our Supreme Court. A further amelioration of the burden presently imposed on the Supreme Court will result from the creation of a Court of Appeal should the proposed referendum it is hoped to hold next Autumn to provide for such court receive public support.

As a further measure to deal with concerns relating to possible inflation of awards and a consequent effect on insurance costs, I am proposing to restrict the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to €60,000 in respect of personal injury actions."

It should be noted that the current monetary jurisdiction limits for civil matters in the Circuit Court stands at €38,092 and for the District Court at €6,384. The limits have remained unchanged since the coming into force of the Courts Act 1991. In concluding Minister Shatter stated "It is almost 22 years since change was affected to the monetary jurisdiction of our courts. This is far too long. I believe it is in the public interest that jurisdictional issues be revisited more frequently and I am considering what steps might be taken in the context of this Bill to ensure this occurs in the future."

Note for Editors:

Jurisdiction of Circuit Court and District Court
The monetary jurisdiction limits of the Circuit Court and District Court have remained unchanged since 1991. The Courts Act 1991 set the current monetary jurisdiction limits for civil matters at €38,092 (£30,000) for the Circuit Court and €6,384 (£5,000) for the District Court. Although the Courts and Court Officers Act 2002 made statutory provision for increases in the limits to €100,000 and €20,000 respectively, these increased limits were never brought into operation.
The retention of the lower monetary limits has rendered the District and Circuit Courts redundant in respect of some classes of civil proceedings. The low level of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court means that very modest actions must, in the absence of agreement between the parties, be taken in the High Court with consequential higher legal costs arising. Legal costs are a significant component of the overall cost of civil actions.
The Minister is proposing to increase the jurisdiction limits to €75,000 for the Circuit Court and €15,000 for the District Court. However, in personal injury actions, the revised jurisdiction limit of the Circuit Court will be restricted to €60,000. The Minister’s proposals will set the jurisdiction limits at levels that are more in keeping with current monetary values while at the same time guarding against undue inflationary pressure on insurance costs.

Jurisdiction of District Court and Circuit Court (Part 3)
Part 3 will change the monetary limits on the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and District Court in civil proceedings to €75,000 and €15,000 respectively. However, in personal injury actions, the revised monetary jurisdiction limit of the Circuit Court will be €60,000. Sections 11 to 18 of the Bill and the Schedule amend various enactments to provide for this."

From newspaper reports it seems like the Minister would like to get this Bill passed by the end of July.

The main page on the Oireachtas website for the Bill is here

The explanatory memorandum is here

The Courts Bill 2013 text is here

ppcoyle has, predictably enough, started a thread on the proposed in camera amendments (In Health and Social Affairs rather bizarrely). If you want to comment on that aspect then pop on over to crazy town. I only want to discuss the jurisdiction amendments.

I have been hearing rumours for a while about a potential increase of the jurisdiction which I had dismissed because people were claiming it was going to be done overnight and that the CC jurisdiction would be €75,000. The only way it could have been increased overnight was by commencing the 2002 Act provisions which upped the jurisdiction to €100,000, which could not be amended by SI.

It now appears that they were correct after all, if not on the mode of introducing the increases.

On first glance, the increases to the CC jurisdiction seem a bit ridiculous. It would mean we would have three separate limits for CC cases:-

(i) €50,000 for Defamation cases;
(ii) €60,000 for Personal Injuries Cases;
(iii) €75,000 for everything else.

Madness.

I would rather they picked a figure and increased everything to the same figure. Even if Defamation were increased to the €75,000, it's still insanity to have two monetary jurisdictions. If you want to cap the Personal Injuries jurisdiction for fear of awards inflation (which will undoubtedly happen anyway), cap the entire jurisdiction at that amount.

€75,000 is also a ridiculously high figure, particularly given the divergent range of quality that exists in the Circuit Court. The High Court will be buried with appeals.

I would prefer it if the jurisdiction was upped to €50,000, which I think is a less dramatic increase but would still capture a lot of the cases that are currently clogging the High Court lists. I could probably be convinced on €60,000 at a stretch. But not €75,000.

In relation to the DC increasing to €15,000, I also think that this is too high, bearing in mind who will be dealing with the cases.

It seems that they have simply decided to double both jurisdictions. Whilst it is necessary to increase the jurisdictions to clear up the lists and reduce costs, the increases are too high.

Also, as a final thought, do people really think this will decrease costs? If someone is doing a 50,000/60,000 case in the Circuit Court I would have thought they would certainly charge for that accordingly given the risk involved re insurance etc. Also, would it mean Senior Counsel in the Circuit Court?

Anyway, would be interested to hear what other people think.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
11,554
They haven't changed since 1991? That's a shocking indictment of all previous governments and ministers for justice in particular.

Why is it madness to have three different limits in the CC?
 

gijoe

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
15,419
Hopefully this might reduce the High Court backlog as well.
 

kbar2011

Active member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
212
I just think it's ridiculous to set three separate monetary limits in a court without any objective justification for doing so. If there is a specific and justifiable reason for it, then I'd like to hear, but I can't think of one.

Case 1, judge has 75,000 discretion, case 2, 50,000 discretion, case 3 60,000 discretion? Does that also mean that we have three different cost structures depending on which hat the court is wearing?

Its just looks stupid and will inevitably cause hassle and confusion. If there was a particular reason for adding in this kind of complication or distinction, then I would be open to hearing it. But it just doesn't seem right to me. There should be one limit, applied to all cases.

And yes, it is a complete indictment of all previous governments that they have dallied so long in introducing proper reform to the courts and the legal system in general.

They haven't changed since 1991? That's a shocking indictment of all previous governments and ministers for justice in particular.

Why is it madness to have three different limits in the CC?
 

kbar2011

Active member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
212
Hopefully this might reduce the High Court backlog as well.
Well, if the limit is too high, are you replacing one backlog with another? If cases which are worth more are being decided in courts which are generally not equipped to handle cases beyond a certain value, then all that'll happen is that it will reduce the back log temporarily, until the appeals start rolling in en masse.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,478
I don't think the three seperate limits is an issue, to be fair. Even our most exotically stupid Circuit Judge can keep three seperate figures in their heads.
 

kbar2011

Active member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
212

borntorum

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
12,805
€75,000 is also a ridiculously high figure, particularly given the divergent range of quality that exists in the Circuit Court. The High Court will be buried with appeals.

I would prefer it if the jurisdiction was upped to €50,000, which I think is a less dramatic increase but would still capture a lot of the cases that are currently clogging the High Court lists. I could probably be convinced on €60,000 at a stretch. But not €75,000.
I disagree; given the wide jurisdiction of the CC in criminal and family law, it always seemed ludicrous to me that it was limited to the relatively paltry figure of €38k in most civil cases. I don't think €75k is excessive.
 

artfoley56

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
9,595
in fairness kbar, it was judge odonoghue so its not that surprising considering he gave a divorce pursuant to 2(1)(b) and the week he was in phoenix he generated 9 appeals out of 23 hearings

i would have preferred to see 100k jurisdiction myself

had a quick look at pp's thread and ran
 

Diawlbach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
10,461
Now, while I'm by and large in favour of this (Counsel will now tax in the District, and it'll make no odds on the ten grand case because there'll inevitably be inflation and the six grand case now will rapidly become the ten then), feeling the only guys getting in the neck are seniors, this one just took my breath away:

Mr. €605/hour said:
It is crucial that parties involved in legal conflict do not incur more legal costs than are necessary in circumstances in which they have to resort to litigation.
While it's correct, for him to say it is like Ron Jeremy lecturing on the necessity for the virtue of chastity. The hypocrisy of the man!
 

Mrwoody

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
1,876
Does this mean home repossession cases can be heard outside the high court does anybody know?
 

elliebee

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
5,005
The increased jurisdictions for the CC seems to me to only affect Senior Counsel as surely the current requirement for Juniors only would remain.

I have to say that two Seniors and a Junior for High Court plaintiffs adds a massive burden of costs to the legal bill.

Having said that, I think Mr Shatter has a massive bee in his bonnet so far as Counsel is concerned. Apart from Counsel for the bigger Dublin firms who represent the government, pubic bodies, etc. in the higher courts they'll find it hard to make a decent living.
 

Diawlbach

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
10,461
The increased jurisdictions for the CC seems to me to only affect Senior Counsel as surely the current requirement for Juniors only would remain.

I have to say that two Seniors and a Junior for High Court plaintiffs adds a massive burden of costs to the legal bill.

Having said that, I think Mr Shatter has a massive bee in his bonnet so far as Counsel is concerned. Apart from Counsel for the bigger Dublin firms who represent the government, pubic bodies, etc. in the higher courts they'll find it hard to make a decent living.
He does. Everyone else paying for his grudges, again.

As it happens, I'd be of the view there's no reason for two seniors. This will probably be good for Circuit juniors, mind.

Unfortunate typo, though. :D
 
Top