Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1930 > Committee on the Courts of Justice Act 1924 and the Civil Jurisdiction of the Courts > Report - Courts of Justice Act 1924 and the civil jurisdiction of the Courts

IMEACHTA AN CHO-CHOISTE.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE.

Dé Céadaoin, 5adh Mí na Samhna, 1930.

Wednesday, 5th November, 1930.

1. The Joint Committee met at 11 a.m.

2. Present:—Deputy Morrissey (in the Chair); Deputies Little and Wolfe; Senators Brown, Farren, Hooper and Wilson.

3. The consideration of the Chairman’s Draft Report was resumed.

(i) Paragraph 27 postponed.

(ii) Paragraphs 28 and 29 agreed to.

(iii) Paragraph 30 postponed.

(iv) Postponed Paragraph 18.

Amendment proposed (Deputy Little):

“Delete the second sub-paragraph of (a) and insert as follows:—‘The Committee is, however, of opinion that, in carrying this recommendation into effect, a distinction should be made between judgments of the Circuit Court for sums not exceeding £25 and those for larger amounts. The Committee considers that priority in bankruptcy should not be conferred on judgments of that Court for amounts which do not exceed £25, over and above costs. Under the old County Court practice, a judgment for £50 or under was not entitled to this priority, but the Committee considers that there is no justification for priority not being given to judgments for sums which exceed £25.’”

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Paragraph agreed to.

(v) Paragraphs 31, 32 and 33

agreed to.

(vi) Paragraph 34 postponed.

(vii) Paragraph 35.

Amendment proposed (Deputy Little):

“Delete the last sentence and substitute as follows:—‘As regards the matters over which the Master should be given jurisdiction, the Committee recommends that he should be permitted to exercise the powers conferred on him by Order XIII of the Rules of the High Court and Supreme Court dated 13th July, 1926, and by Order XXX of the Rules made under the Judicature Act, 1905.’”

Question put; the Committee divided; For, 1; Against, 6.

For:—Deputy Little.

Against: — Deputies Morrissey and Wolfe; Senators Brown, Farren, Hooper and Wilson.

The Question was declared negatived accordingly.

Paragraph agreed to.

(viii) Paragraphs 36 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.

(ix) Paragraphs 41 and 42 postponed.

(x) New paragraph.

Amendment proposed (Senator Hooper):

“After Paragraph 42 to insert the following new paragraph:—

‘The work of the Court Stenographers was discussed with many witnesses. There was general agreement that on the whole it was remarkably well done, but objection was taken to the fact that in some cases the stenographers are only part-time employees. This, it was pointed out, had proved unsatisfactory in a number of instances and left an opening for possible irregularities. The Committee recommend that the stenographers should be given regular official status on a whole-time basis and be formed into a special service, the members of which should be transferable to any court in which they might be required, either permanently or temporarily.’”

Question:—“That the new Paragraph be there inserted”—put, and agreed to.

(xi) Paragraphs 43 and 44 agreed to.

(xii) Paragraph 45 postponed.

(xiii) Paragraphs 46 to 59 inclusive, agreed to.

(xiv) Paragraph 60.

Amendment proposed (Senator Hooper):

“After the words ‘Peace Commissioner’ to insert the words in brackets ‘(specially approved for that purpose by the Chief Justice).’”

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Paragraph agreed to.

(xv) Paragraph 61 agreed to.

4. Business was suspended at 1 p.m. for two hours.

5. Business was resumed at 3 p.m. and the following members were present:—Deputy Morrissey (in the Chair); Deputies Rice and Wolfe; Senators Brown, Farren, Hooper, O’Rourke and Wilson.

6. The consideration of the Chairman’s Draft Report was resumed.

(i) Paragraphs 62, 63 and 64 postponed.

(ii) Paragraphs 65 to 70 inclusive, agreed to.

(iii) New Paragraph.

Amendment proposed (Senator Brown):

“Before Paragraph 71 to insert a new Paragraph as follows:—

‘That a statutory power to change the venue to another Circuit Court area should be conferred on the Circuit Court.’”

Question:—“That the new Paragraph be there inserted”—put, and agreed to.

(iv) Paragraphs 71 to 85 inclusive, agreed to.

(v) Paragraph 86.

Amendment proposed (Deputy Rice):

“In the second last line, after the word ‘shall’ to insert the words ‘except by leave of the High Court.’”

Question put, and agreed to.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

(vi) Paragraphs 87 to 97 inclusive, agreed to.

(vii) Paragraph 98 postponed.

(viii) Postponed Paragraph 42.

Amendment proposed (Deputy Rice):

“To delete Paragraph 42 and to substitute therefor the following paragraph:—

‘Evidence has been produced to the Committee that the costs of a decree in the case of small debts in respect of annuities are high out of all proportion to the amount of the debt, and unduly inflate the original liability. In the case of a decree for 13s. 4d., the costs are stated to be, approximately, 11/-; in the case of a decree for £2 9s. 0d., approximately, £1 3s. 0d.

‘Only in a very small proportion of cases is the liability to pay contested, the debt being admitted, and the only matter to be dealt with is the inability or unwillingness of the annuitant to meet his obligations. The Committee feel that the application to such cases of the present scale of costs is productive of great hardship, and they recommend that a new and considerably reduced scale should be fixed by legislation and made applicable to uncontested cases for the recovery of sums not exceeding £10.’”

Question put; the Committee divided; For, 6; Against, 3.

For:—Deputies Little, Rice and Wolfe; Senators Brown, Hooper and Wilson.

Against:—Deputy Morrissey; Senators Farren and O’Rourke.

The Question was declared carried accordingly.

7. The Joint Committee adjourned at 6 p.m. until 10 a.m. to morrow.