Here Comes The Pane [Updated]





From top: President of the High Court Justice Peter Kelly; Master of the High Court Ed Honohan

Unpaid internal court ventilation maintenance.

Healthy disdain for the banks.

Humane and empathetic.

He had to go.

Via The Irish Times:

Debt cases are to be removed from the Master of the High Court [Ed Honohan] under a direction signed today by the President of the High Court [Peter Kelly]….

The existing system for dealing with claims for a pure money debt involves a summary summons being issued in the High Court central office. If the debtor seeks to defend that, they enter an appearance. The claimant then proceeds to apply for judgment and that application then comes before the Master who has powers to deal with it himself or send it to the High Court to be dealt with.

Under the new practice direction, the procedure before the Master will be bypassed and summary summonses will be dealt with by a High Court judge.

That’ll learn him.

Debt cases to be removed from Master of the High Court (Irish Times)

Previously: Ask A Broadsheet Reader

 A ‘Sick Joke’

Summary Justice

Thanks Trueblueterry

Sponsored Link

31 thoughts on “Here Comes The Pane [Updated]

  1. b

    fair decision, event though he was not a judge he clearly wasn’t an impartial adjudicator in this issues

    1. Bodger

      b, all he wanted was for the rules to be applied properly, that’s all. He never suggested anything outside the rules.

      1. b

        we all want rules applied properly, what’s inside/outside the rules is for the courts to interpret without predjudice

        if someone in his position was making political representations in favour of banks there would be uproar and he would have been removed earlier

          1. Trueblueterry

            Sorry Bodger but he consistently acted outside the rules.

            I suggest you look at AIB v Pearse or AIB v Honohan, in both cases the Court found that the Master did not have the power to do what he did and in both cases what he did was to the detriment of the Bank’s interest.

          2. Rob

            Judges and people acting in quasi judicial functions always get appealed, showing he got overturned in 2 cases doesn’t show he consistently acted outside the rules.

        1. Trueblueterry

          Rob, I think you should read the judgments rather than assuming that they are simply overturning him.

          AIB v Pearse states that the Master has to stop ignoring judgments from the High Court and in AIB v Honohan he was found to be bias against the Banks. I am pretty sure that shows he acted outside the rules consistently.

  2. Eoin

    First a practice direction which stops live tweeting of all cases, including judgement readings and gives the right to the judge to seize and examine your phone, then a practice direction that came out of the blue which imposes huge disclosure requirements on solicitors in asylum cases, now the highly regarded master gets constructively dismissed (because debt cases are probably 80% of of his workload).

    What next, a practice direction to give judges the right of primae noctis?

    I really this this latest self-entitled dictat should be protested, robustly.

  3. KM

    They are taking anti eviction protesters and campaigners off the streets and have now removed the only person within the law system who is critical of evictions and repo’s.
    They were recently saved by the Ceann Comhairle’s vote on an anti eviction bill and the events in Roscommon put what they are doing to people front and center.

    This is a big issue, a real danger to our system of law and our right to protest.

    1. b

      the length of time it takes for a bank to secure an eviction in the courts would suggest that courts are already quiet sympathetic to people in arrears without acting outside their remit

  4. Baz

    perhaps Honahan has skin in the game with the delays and chaos he tilled. he really needs to declare the reason(s) behind his partisan actions

  5. Truth in the News

    Its time the Body Politic took on the likes of Mr Justice Peter Kelly, this a blatant
    overeaching of judicial authority and what it is a Judicial Power Grab, there is
    every good reason to test it constitutionally .

      1. Rob

        With torches and pitch forks, presumably.

        Overreaching? Judicial Power Grab? He’s the president of the High Court. He’s the highest judge of first instance in the country.

  6. Truth in the News

    It has interfered with an existing legal process vested in the Master of the High Court
    by arbitrary judicial decision and as such can be challenged……just wait and see

    1. Trueblueterry

      The Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 clearly states:

      “(3) It shall be the function of the President of the High Court or, where he is not available, the senior ordinary judge of the High Court who is for the time being available to arrange the distribution and allocation of the business of the High Court.”

      Years ago the Master of the High Court was involved in the making of Discovery Orders, this was taken out of his list and put it into the High Court. It is the sole discretion of the President of the High Court to decide what the Master does and doesn’t deal with.

      So again I ask on what basis do you propose that this is unconstitutional? Might I also point out that the Master’s is created by Statute and not under the Constitution. Its sole purpose to perform an administrative function.

      1. Robert

        I think he’s referring to the concept of separation of powers, which is a general feature of most modern democracies. The argument goes that the president of the high court has acted in the interest of the banks by adjusting the procedures of the high court. Is that not obvious?

        1. Rob

          Not to anyone who understands the process.

          The President o the High Court has acted in the interest of justice by taking out an unnecessary step in the process.In summary cases, the Master just asks if there is a contest to the claim (any type of claim of a defence) if so, it gets sent to a judge to decide on the merits. He was never determining these cases against the bank. The only final order he could give was in favour of the bank.

          1. Trueblueterry

            Rob is correct.

            It is also completely incorrect to state that this has anything to do with a breach of the separation of powers when you cannot point to the legislature or executive having any involvement in this decision. The Banks are not one of the powers.

          1. axelf

            most of the time. there has been occasion that people have had to go downstairs in phoenix house to some idiotic stuff appealed

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link