Changes to High Court Handling of Personal Injury

martigk

I attended the High Court recently to support a friend who was injured in a car crash, to my surpirise I discovered that the procedure used to handle these cases was changed on 1st December 2011.

Previously after dealing with the Injuries Board you then applied to the High Court for a hearing of your case, you were then assigned a case number, court date and list number and when the date came around you waited for the first judge available to hear your case - each case taken in turn per the list.

Now when you go to court on your given date there is no list, so you wait in hope that the next judge available wants to take your case because they can now pick and choose the cases they hear, so if you don't get before a judge on tuesday you then go back again on Weds (with all the other plantiffs from both days) and wait for a judge to pick your case, this goes on until Friday afternoon, when there could be a build up of god knows how many people waiting for justice & closure - what happens at 3.30pm ?? the judges can decide to throw out all the cases waiting all week and these unfortunate people have to reapply to the courts possibly waiting 6 to 8 months to go through this carry on again !!!!

As a result of this new procedure - judges are blocking up court lists and Insurance Companies will not have settlement meetings prior to court proceedings and during the waiting time whilst plantiffs sit for days waiting for justice the Insurance Companies offer very below settlement figures safe in the knowledge that it is highly unlikely that the case will be heard at first application and that they can hold onto their cash for 6 - 8 months longer.

The notice announcing this procedure change is unsigned and it would appear that the judicary and their clerks do not answer to any Government department !! When are we going to stop supporting Banks and Insurance companies ????

martigk

martigk wrote: »

Now when you go to court on your given date there is no list, so you wait in hope that the next judge available wants to take your case because they can now pick and choose the cases they hear, so if you don't get before a judge on tuesday you then go back again on Weds (with all the other plantiffs from both days) and wait for a judge to pick your case, this goes on until Friday afternoon, when there could be a build up of god knows how many people waiting for justice & closure - what happens at 3.30pm ?? the judges can decide to throw out all the cases waiting all week and these unfortunate people have to reapply to the courts possibly waiting 6 to 8 months to go through this carry on again !!!!

That's not what happens.

The cases are all called over each day and an indication of the likely length of a case is given by Counsel for both sides. The cases specially fixed to be heard are taken first and the remainder of the list is then assigned by ballot depending on the length of the case and the judge who becomes free.

So therefore if a judge who can take a 4 day case becomes available all the cases that can take up to 4 days are put in a draw and the registrar in Court 2 selects one at random. If a 2 day judge comes free only those cases taking a maximum of 2 days are drawn.

The length of a time a judge has to hear a case depends on what matters are specially fixed to be heard by them which must take priority. The reason the list system was changed was to give everyone an equal shot of getting a judge on any given day rather than people at 25-35 being reasonably sure that they wouldn't get on at all on their assigned day unless many many cases settled.

It's not perfect but the High Court is down quite a few judges and even more registrars right now due to the Civil Service embargo on hiring and that is causing serious problems with the lists.

martigk wrote: »

When are we going to stop supporting Banks and Insurance companies ????

This last part is just silly and actually undermines a reasonable point that the lists are really under a lot of pressure at the moment and the appointment of judges and registrars needs to be done soon.

I do understand that the PI list is getting a week each term where there'll be at least 2 or 3 extra judges available to clear out the 1 or 2 day cases that often get bandied about the lists for a while from here on in which would be a welcome development.

martigk

while I agree that it is sensible to have judges who are available for two days only to hear cases that will take two days to clear, the point I was making was that after the pain and suffering from the Injury received to have Plantiffs waiting to see if they have struck lucky in the daily draw to get a judge is; in a way victimising the injured party - in theory this new procedure might work but in practice it is very damaging to people who have already been injured..... therefore it is assisting the Insurance companies, because these injured people are at the end of their rope, financially, emotionally as well as physically & those representing the defense play on this.

While I have no sympathy for anyone exagerating their injuries in order to make "easy money". The system for victims of personal injury in this country is very hard, Insurance companies abuse the courts system by causing often umwarranted delays and Plantiffs are considered "guilty" in a way by having to prove their injuries over and over again not only to the judge but to defence medical teams who can be very hard on injured people. Also, the defense can and do have them followed & photographed by private detectives which most people find extremely difficult to live with and this evidence is not given to the Plantiff's legal team until the actual court proceedings have started, thereby not giving Plantiff's an opportunity to respond, unlike medical reports which are offered prior to court dates and their content can be challenged, this causes further stress on injured people which in turn can cause further pain. On the day I was observing this system any cases not taken up by a judge that week were being offered a date 8 months later. This costs money as after six months most medical reports are considered out of date and at 500 - 700 euros per report it is an expense that could be done without, then there is the costs of expert wittness's who have to be paid while on call for court - medical consultants have to pre book this time off and this is reflected in their court on call charges - the busier the consultant the higher the cost.....

Therefore, using this so called draw system is grossly unfair on the victims, and as I said it gives another stick to insurance companies to beat victims with by causing delays and uncertainty which causes stress which in turn causes pain.
If this draw system offered an alternative hearing date that could not be changed by the defense - prehaps during the summer break then at least personal injury victims having prepared for court and been denied access to a judge on that date could leave the high court building with a sense of some small justice, with the knowledge that their case will be heard by a judge. It might also be appropriate to put a guaranteed halt on any work done by Private detectives during this time thereby eliminating this extra stress on victims.

dermot_sheehan

For the system to work given the number of cases versus number of judges and the fact that many personal injuries cases settle on the day of hearing, there needs to be many more cases listed for hearing on a given date than judges available to hear them.

The old system involved cases that were listed for a certain date earlier being at the top of the list and more likely to be heard (though a judge could list a case with priority if for example expert witnesses were flying in from abroad).

The lists however have gotten so large in recent months given the number of personal injuries cases being set down for trial versus number of judges available to hear personal injuries actions that the odds of a case listed at the bottom being heard became negligible. This disincentivised defendants (i.e. mostly insurance companies) from making offers to settle cases, and indeed in many cases defendants' legal teams were not turning up if a case was listed at the bottom. Instead of a chance of the case settling even if it wasn't heard, it was dropped from the list, and went back to be relisted again, exacerbating the problem of too many personal injuries actions being listed.

A randomised manner of allocating cases for hearing every day is the fairest way to deal with this system and deals with the problem of defendants' legal teams not appearing to defend cases or making an effort to settle them.

Agree with Dermot and would add that the private detectives keep insurance premiums down. The number of people who claim they can't even socialise anymore due to, for example, a back injury and that they are unable to walk more than very short distances etc who are then photographed dancing the night away in a local club is astonishing. They deserve nothing and it is their fault, not the insurance companies, that private detectives are needed.

martigk

My issue is that this system would appear to be unfair to the victim of injury.
Because of this system; in theory; a Plantiff could be called to the High Court on the 1st Tuesday in Feb for a three day case only to find themselves waiting until Friday without being called before a judge then being put in the position of having to wait for the next available date which might be the 1st Tuesday in Dec. Then having waited an additional eight months for a hearing find themselves in exactly the same position as they were in in Feb, this could happen again & again & again for years to come.... This is not dealing with a list this is causing a longer list !
As for Insurance companies taking the chance that they won't be even called and not showing up for court on the assigned day - one could suggest that this could be deemed as a forefit of defense and have these cases automatically brought before a judge for settlement - this would clear the list. I am not saying the old system was perfect but this one is far from perfect too; one could say that it could be in the Insurance Companies best interests to place additional wittness's on their lists in order to lengthen the amount of days a case will run for;safe in the knowledge that a case that will take four days to complete will be less likely to be heard than a case due to take three or two days.

As for the Private Detectives - I have no problem with Plantiff's being photographed; I have a problem with the way this evidence is not disclosed to the Plantiff's legal team in the same timely manner that other reports are disclosed, thereby giving Plantiff's time to examine and respond to the content. .. it is already unfair that a Plantiff can be photographed but if a defendant is followed and photographed it is an invasion of privacy. . . I understand that due to the nature of Personal Injury claims it is necessary to try to disprove the Plantiff's claims of disability, however, some times people with injuries will carry out tasks in the knowledge that they will suffer more pain afterward - for instance, any parent with back injuries will pick up their crying child after a fall - if this is photographed it can look like they are not injured, not every picture is better than a thousand words,

Reloc8

martigk wrote: »

... some times people with injuries will carry out tasks in the knowledge that they will suffer more pain afterward - for instance, any parent with back injuries will pick up their crying child after a fall - if this is photographed it can look like they are not injured, not every picture is better than a thousand words,

This is true, but such a person could never honestly claim that they were physically unable to pick up their child, crying or otherwise. Not having made such a claim, they would have nothing to worry about in respect of people trying to photograph them acting in this way.

Milk & Honey

Reloc8 wrote: »

This is true, but such a person could never honestly claim that they were physically unable to pick up their child, crying or otherwise. Not having made such a claim, they would have nothing to worry about in respect of people trying to photograph them acting in this way.

A person may say the can't do something in the sense that it is inadvisable for them to do something. e.G. I might say I can't drink more than 2 whiskeys. This might be true in the sense that if I drink two whiskeys I will be stocious, will be at risk of injuring myself and others and will have an almighty hangover the next day. If someone sees me drinking three whiskeys are they entitled to call me a liar and a cheat?

Milk & Honey

I personally think the personal injury cattle mart is an affront to justice. It is ridiculous that professionals such as solicitor, barristers, doctors and engineers, accountants and on occasion others spend hours hanging around a court building. Added to this parties involved must keep themselves available for an inordinate amount of time.
It does not happen in England. A time is given for the hearing and it goes ahead. The reason is case management. Directions are given by a judge at each stage, mediation must be tried and it is only cases where absolutely no agreement can be reached which are scheduled for hearing. Once a hearing is scheduled there is no monkeying around. The court is ready at the time appointed and on it goes. No last minute settlement talks.

Carawaystick

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

For the system to work given the number of cases versus number of judges and the fact that many personal injuries cases settle on the day of hearing, there needs to be many more cases listed for hearing on a given date than judges available to hear them.

Or for judges to work harder for their sky high pensions/salaries/security of tenure

Milk & Honey

Milk & Honey wrote: »

A person may say the can't do something in the sense that it is inadvisable for them to do something.[...] If someone sees me drinking three whiskeys are they entitled to call me a liar and a cheat?

If it's inadvisable then their Particulars of Loss and Damage should say that and not that they are incapable of it. Accuracy is quite important in these documents and you can't simply shrug your shoulders and say "sure, ya knew what I meant" when it comes to assessing quantum.

If you say that you cannot drink three whiskeys and you put this in a Court document then it better be the truth. If you should not drink three whiskeys, or have been advised that it would be a bad idea, then the Particulars should say that.

I have seen one woman who claimed that she couldn't lift her children or walk long distances being photographed playing a competitive camogie match. For every borderline case there is conversely a ridiculous one. When those people win their case everyone else has to pay for it. How is that fair?

nuac

Fadó fadó a judge's salary was a usually a multiple of the income of all others involved in the case.

Nowadays apart from the modest incomes of the solicitors and barristers, the cost of professional witnesses is substantial.

The current "system" re the Dublin PI list is a scandal,

Counsel may be able to live with it, but a solicitor who has to arrange attendance of witnesses has an impossible job. It is difficult enough to round up the team of witnesses for a particular date - much harder after keeping them hanging around for a day or days, and then ask them to come back some days or weeks later

Suggestions

More judges should be appointed.

Courts should sit 10.30 to 5 ( with the hour for lunch )

It should not be necessary to "open" correspondence etc to the court - i.e. reading documents to the court. It should suffice to hand them into court, mentioning the particular letters or part of document to which one wants to draw the judges attention.

Apart f rom mediation processses - which probably has failed or not sincerely tried if case is in court - experts should be encouraged to meet to see what can be agreed even that morning.

Over many years and many cases I have rarely known an insurance company to offer the full value of a case until it ready to start or indeed has started. This increases everybody's costs

benway

nuac wrote: »

More judges should be appointed.

This is what it comes down to. The whole thing with the October call-over pushing on a load of cases that probably weren't ready in the first place has the list so clogged up that it's pretty much impossible to get a date this side of long vacation. Just got off the phone with someone who was horrified at the idea that they won't be getting a date 'till November or December for an application now.

All they've done in any of the lists is to shift the bottleneck around to different stages of the process. Until there are more judges, this is the best that can reasonably be expected.

No point in hiring more judges unless they also hire more registrars.

On a side note I doubt that the Government will stump up for 6 to 12 more judges given how eager they are to cut the judiciary payroll.

Kosseegan

Every additional High Court judge needs a registrar and a tipstaff. All three are entitled to pensions for their services. There is also a requirement for more researchers etc. It costs at least €0.5m annually for each High Court Judgeship. Throwing more judges at the problem is the traditional remedy but there would need to be about 15 additional High Court judges to seriously make a dent in the lists. The reality is that the phenomenom of the offer as the case starts must be dealt with.

Carawaystick

Kosseegan wrote: »

Every additional High Court judge needs a registrar and a tipstaff. All three are entitled to pensions for their services. There is also a requirement for more researchers etc. It costs at least €0.5m annually for each High Court Judgeship. Throwing more judges at the problem is the traditional remedy but there would need to be about 15 additional High Court judges to seriously make a dent in the lists. The reality is that the phenomenom of the offer as the case starts must be dealt with.

What does a Tipstaff do that is essential to the work of a judge?

Why would new appointees get the same terms and conditions as others?

Why not offer defined contribution pensions, with the employer paying 5% say?
What law entitles a person to a pension from their employer? I thought only that the employer must make payroll contributions into a prsa

There were politicians on the airwaves last year saying that judges were justified in getting a pension of half their final salary in only 15 years of service as they could only work as a judge for a short time until their retirement at 70 or so.
What were they doing for the rest of their lives up to age 55?

Avatargh

Carawaystick wrote: »

What does a Tipstaff do that is essential to the work of a judge?

Why would new appointees get the same terms and conditions as others?

Why not offer defined contribution pensions, with the employer paying 5% say?
What law entitles a person to a pension from their employer? I thought only that the employer must make payroll contributions into a prsa

There were politicians on the airwaves last year saying that judges were justified in getting a pension of half their final salary in only 15 years of service as they could only work as a judge for a short time until their retirement at 70 or so.
What were they doing for the rest of their lives up to age 55?

Not bad points.

Kosseegan

Carawaystick wrote: »

What does a Tipstaff do that is essential to the work of a judge?

Why would new appointees get the same terms and conditions as others?

Why not offer defined contribution pensions, with the employer paying 5% say?
What law entitles a person to a pension from their employer? I thought only that the employer must make payroll contributions into a prsa

There were politicians on the airwaves last year saying that judges were justified in getting a pension of half their final salary in only 15 years of service as they could only work as a judge for a short time until their retirement at 70 or so.
What were they doing for the rest of their lives up to age 55?

What has judges remuneration got to do with the handling of lists of cases? Judges are paid the way they are and have tipstaffs and pensions. It is another matter entirely as to whether judges are paid too much. Appointing extra judges will cost a lot of money and is the wrong approach.

nuac

More judges urgently needed.

As a short-term measure could judges reaching retirement age be asked to volunteer to serve for anothe say two years subject to medicat exam,

Registrars could be temporarily assigned from existing Court services staff.

Milk & Honey

nuac wrote: »

More judges urgently needed.

As a short-term measure could judges reaching retirement age be asked to volunteer to serve for anothe say two years subject to medicat exam,

Registrars could be temporarily assigned from existing Court services staff.

The retirement age was brought down 15 years ago and it would need legislative change to bring it up again. There would also be legislative change needed to increase the number of judges.
There would be no problem appointing a few senior practitioners as judges. It could be done in a few weeks.
The existing Court Service staff complement has been reduced by early retirements and there is difficulty getting enough registrars as it is.
The one thing there is no shortage of at the moment are courtrooms, in Dublin. The new fun palace at the zoo has solved that problem.

Carawaystick

Kosseegan wrote: »

What has judges remuneration got to do with the handling of lists of cases? Judges are paid the way they are and have tipstaffs and pensions. It is another matter entirely as to whether judges are paid too much. Appointing extra judges will cost a lot of money and is the wrong approach.

You brought up the half a million per annum cost of hiring a judge to the superior courts.
I asked about the role of a tipstaff, my perception is they bang a stick in front of the judge as they walk along. I'm sure it's more than this, surely. However is their role essential to the work of a judge?

Similarly what does a registrar do? What are the qualifications necessary for a registrar.

My point was that existing judges are paid the way they are and have existing employment terms. New courts service staff need not necessarily get the same terms and conditions as existing staff, reducing the marginal cost of employing a judge dramatically.

Plus giving only 20 days (or the legal minimum) holidays would increase the time the courts sit and get more productivity from non judge salaried staff of the courts service.

nuac

Caraway

Giving judges only 20 days hols? Revolution!

However other courts should work during September and take shorter breaks during Easter and Whit . The District courts do not get such holidays.

Milk and Honey
puteris
Many lawyers are well able to function when over 70. Legislation should be brought in to allow this.

Re number of judges - are some of them employed chairing various bodies etc - could they be replaced in those functions.?

Re Registrars

While court services staff numbers are declining, full computerisation has not been applied to all their procedures. Indeed many of their procedures and paper work are antiquated. Much room for streamlining

martigk

Many thanks for all your comments, its good to see lively debate is still alive and well. However in this debate the original comments I made with regard to the way victims of personal injury are treated seem to have been lost amonst the comments.....

My real concern is that with these changes the injured party is once again being victimised only this time its through complete and total lack of consideration of how peoples lives are completely changed by these injuries, I am not talking about broken necks / broken backs because as it was commented on to me by an occupational therapist I know, in cases where the injured person has suffered such injuries they are basically taught how to live again step by step - how to sit, move, work with their disability, but people with injuries such as back & neck problems which can and do deteriorate over time have no such support and are usually considered/treated by the defense in their cases as someone trying to inflate their claims.
This OT said to me that she felt sorry for such people as they had a much bigger battle to try to regain their life and ofter suffere severe pain for the rest of their lives. Its the usual story - tell someone you have a pain in your arm & they say they hope it eases but put a plaster / bandage on your arm and everyone rushes to help you lift /carry.
As for Judges working hours, salaries & judical staff - the courts need to open for more days but working with these new conditions will not make that happen nore will it make the lists shorter, this procedure change was well intentioned but does not work. . . . . and if it does not work the only people it hurts are the victims trying to get justice . . Insurance companies are laughing, because each delay means that the injured person will eventually just get so fed up dealing with the pain and delays that they will settle for increasingly lower amounts so its in the Insurance companies favour not to try to settle out of court.

I think we need
a) More Judges
b) Firm unchangeable dates given to cases not heard on 1st date i.e.; when cases are put to end of list
on friday after waiting all week to be heard.
c) Insurance companies forced to attend meditation at least once within two years of injury.
d) Time limit imposed on Private Detectives so while waiting for unchangeable final hearing date they
cannot follow or photograph plantiff
e) If Insurance companies do not show for any hearing their defense should be made void and the case
should be settled by judge that day with a penalty paid to victim by Insurance company for
disrespecting them and the courts

I think these or similar measures would go some way towards sorting the court lists, using them to settle cases without using 3 /4 days of a judges time much as the Injuries Board was originally set up to do.

Milk & Honey

Carawaystick wrote: »

You brought up the half a million per annum cost of hiring a judge to the superior courts.
I asked about the role of a tipstaff, my perception is they bang a stick in front of the judge as they walk along. I'm sure it's more than this, surely. However is their role essential to the work of a judge?

Similarly what does a registrar do? What are the qualifications necessary for a registrar.

Given your ignorance on these matters, how can you comment on the cost of employing judges? You blithely assume that would continue on regardless of whether or not these tow persons are not working. A judge cannot sit at all without a registrar. They are civil servants, drawn from the general civil service. Many have been called to the bar.

sammathew

A lot of rules have been modified a little bit and to make sure that you get maximum benefit from the personal injury case, hire a personal injury lawyer.
_______________________
Phoenix Injury Lawyer

ResearchWill

Carawaystick wrote: »

You brought up the half a million per annum cost of hiring a judge to the superior courts.
I asked about the role of a tipstaff, my perception is they bang a stick in front of the judge as they walk along. I'm sure it's more than this, surely. However is their role essential to the work of a judge?

Similarly what does a registrar do? What are the qualifications necessary for a registrar.

My point was that existing judges are paid the way they are and have existing employment terms. New courts service staff need not necessarily get the same terms and conditions as existing staff, reducing the marginal cost of employing a judge dramatically.

Plus giving only 20 days (or the legal minimum) holidays would increase the time the courts sit and get more productivity from non judge salaried staff of the courts service.

Tipstaff there is a question what do they do, well in fact they actually do a lot. Especially in the circuit court, a tip staff's most important job is to juggle the list, on any given day a circuit judge may have 10,11 or more cases listed, remember a day has only so many hours, the idea is that some cases settle, the tippstaff will make sure legal teams are ready to go when the judge is ready. They actually can make a huge difference to the workings of the court.

In the high court, which is in fact a very hard working court, whil court hours are usually 10:30 to 1:00 and 2:15 to 4:00 most high court judges are in office well before 9 and often leave well after 5 then there are meetings in this committee or that, the tippstaff is a very cheap PA, also when you have multiple judges in say one list JR for example one judge manages the list each day then the other judges tippstaff arranges to bring the papers assigned to his judge and makes sure both sides get to court promptly, if matter settles, tippstaff will find out if any of the other judges have work they may not reach and arranges to get it to the relevant judge.

Tip staffs earn mid 20k per year, they also drive judge to personal engagements and to court giving judge more time to work. So for 20k they are PA, driver, conduit of information, I predict now they are been sidelined we will in 10 years end up with each judge having a PA a secretary and a driver at you can imagine the costs.

In relation to registrars they manage the functioning of the court, call the list and call witness, they draft orders, they make sure the judge has the required papers, every registrar I know has a degree, from knowledge I think a lot are qualified barristers. Most registrars work well before court starts and ends I have rung registrars at 9 and at 5, I have received call backs from them after 5. They have to have a good understanding of the law so as to make sure incorrect orders are not made.

In studies Ireland's cost of judges per head of population is the lowest, while our judges are very well paid, in almost every other country they have a multiple of judges.

All one has to do is look at the work of simple tribunals, which have huge backlogs of work, and staff, take the employment appeals tribunal, it has 3 members, 1 secretary and rents hotel meeting rooms by the day, and they have long waiting lists.

Holidays are a good question, the only staff who don't work during the holidays are the judges all other staff work during the vacation. But it's the same argument as in relation to teachers holidays which are way longer and thousands of them get paid during months of holidays.

While the month of August is great as it allows most practioners to get time off, many judges in the high court use September to clear out judgements, even though most judges are really on the ball in that area now with judgements coming pretty fast.

In relation to pay and conditions, judges in the vast majority of cases take a huge drop in salary to do the job, the reasons are kudos, the pension, and public service. Cut it too much and then people won't want it simples.

k mac

while on the subject of personal injury claims i was just wondering can a plaintiff or his solicitor decide in what court his case can be heard in i.e district, high court. I know there is limits of compensation that can be paid in each court . Does the plaintiff try and decide how much he is entitled too and then pick the court ?

NoQuarter

k mac wrote: »

while on the subject of personal injury claims i was just wondering can a plaintiff or his solicitor decide in what court his case can be heard in i.e district, high court. I know there is limits of compensation that can be paid in each court . Does the plaintiff try and decide how much he is entitled too and then pick the court ?

Precisely. If they get it wrong, there can be cost penalties so they must choose wisely.

McCrack

k mac wrote: »

while on the subject of personal injury claims i was just wondering can a plaintiff or his solicitor decide in what court his case can be heard in i.e district, high court. I know there is limits of compensation that can be paid in each court . Does the plaintiff try and decide how much he is entitled too and then pick the court ?

The court venue is decided with regards to the value of the claim. As it currently stands all claims over €38,000 are heard in the High Court. This is due to be increased to €75,000. The Plaintiff will normally take the advice of his lawyers in deciding which venue to run a case in.

To go back to the OP I think you make a lot of sensible points. The current PI system is a bit of a farce. We had many cases recently listed in the Kilkenny HC that were never reached. There was a huge number in the list and there was just no movement. We since sought to set other cases down in Dublin as an alternative to the Kilkenny/Waterford HC thinking we would have better luck getting cases on but unable to do that seemingly vis a vis where the Plaintiff resides and/or accident occurred. It's like every obstacle possible is put up.

The system is very poor for everybody.

ResearchWill

McCrack wrote: »

The court venue is decided with regards to the value of the claim. As it currently stands all claims over €38,000 are heard in the High Court. This is due to be increased to €75,000. The Plaintiff will normally take the advice of his lawyers in deciding which venue to run a case in.

To go back to the OP I think you make a lot of sensible points. The current PI system is a bit of a farce. We had many cases recently listed in the Kilkenny HC that were never reached. There was a huge number in the list and there was just no movement. We since sought to set other cases down in Dublin as an alternative to the Kilkenny/Waterford HC thinking we would have better luck getting cases on but unable to do that seemingly vis a vis where the Plaintiff resides and/or accident occurred. It's like every obstacle possible is put up.

The system is very poor for everybody.

The proposal is 75k except PI which if I remember correctly will be capped at 60k in Circuit Court.

In relation to setting a HC case down in Dublin I do not believe there is any bar based on residency of either party. In fact in Cork there is a practice direction than any case longer than 3 days must be set down in Dublin. I know of many cases set down for Dublin as all experts are based there and its easier.

McCrack

Well our Dublin agents request the county the Plaintiff resides in and where the accident occurred for the setting down docket.

I think it's a recent enough practice direction that non Dublin PI cases must be set down in the local HC venue but one I was not aware of until recently.

nuac

McCrack wrote: »

Well our Dublin agents request the county the Plaintiff resides in and where the accident occurred for the setting down docket.

That may be so, but if setting down locally the plaintiff's solicitor must certify that the case will not run longer than three days.

If it does go over the three days, there may be severe costs penalties