Tag Archives: Peter Kelly

Master of the High Court, Ed Honohan

 

A petition launched during the weekend calling for the reinstatement of the Master of the High Court Ed Honohan to overseeing debt cases.

Last Thursday, Mr Honohan was informed by a journalist that President of the High Court Peter Kelly had removed debt cases from the Master’s list.

Via Change.org:

We The People, hereby petition the Irish High Court, to reverse any decision to remove debt related cases, from the Master Of The High Court, Edmund Honohan.

We respectfully remind Our Court, of its obligations to uphold the Irish Constitution; giving particular mention to fundamental rights therein. Our country has a worsening housing and homelessness crisis, and citizens being subjected to home evictions are now neglected by our elected representatives. Civil rights must be given precedence, as per Constitutional, Statute and ECHR Laws.

Social Housing must be provided. And all homeless children and their families made safe and secure without delay. Additionally our ‘not for profit’ Irish Housing organisations can be facilitated as rental agents, in preference to International Vulture fund home purchases; which should be blocked indefinitely.

We believe that Edmund Honohan acts stoically, in the interests of the Irish people, justice and good law.

His proposed ‘Housing and Fair Mortgage Bill‘ gives merit to our argument, and to his dedication and acumen, in all related regards.

With a tsunami of homelessness in the pipeline, and no Governmental solutions put forward, the proposed removal of Edmund Honohan from debt cases, would be disrespectful to due process for the better good.

We call on The High Court, to pay heed to our collective; as proud citizens of an independent Republic. This petition will be followed up by a hand delivered letter from the Irish people.

Petition to Irish High Court for Edmund Honohan to continue his arbitration of debt cases (Change.org)

Previously: Removing Ed

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

Yesterday, President of the High Court Peter Kelly signed a direction to remove debt cases from the Master of the High Court Edmund Honohan.

The High Court Practice Direction (HC 84) on summary summonses (debt collection claims), signed by Justice Kelly, states:.

“Pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 I hereby direct that from Monday 4th February, 2019 all motions seeking liberty to enter final judgment pursuant to Order 37, rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts shall, in lieu of being set down for hearing before the Master of the High Court, be set down for hearing before a Judge of the High Court and shall be listed in a common law motion list on an appropriate Monday.”

The Rules of the Superior Courts were brought into force by Statutory Instrument (SI) 15 of 1986 passed by the Superior Court Rules Committee exercising its powers under Section 36 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, Section 68 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1936 (as applied by the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, section 48), and Section 14 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961.

Order 37 Rule 1 of the Rules begins:

“Every summary summons endorsed with a claim (other than for an account) under Order 2 to which an appearance has been entered shall be set down before the Master by the plaintiff, on motion for liberty to enter final judgement for the amount claimed.”

Section 10 of the 1961 Act mentioned in the Practice Direction (see above) and subsection 4 states:

“There shall be exercisable by the President of the High Court all jurisdiction which, by virtue of any enactment which is applied by section 48 of this Act, was, immediately before the operative date, vested in or capable of being exercised by the existing President of the High Court.”

Also, Section 36 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924  states that the Rules

“shall be made or annulled or altered only with the concurrence of a majority of a committee consisting of the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court, the President of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, and two practising barristers, of the senior and junior Bar respectively, to be selected by the Council of the Bar of Ireland”

With this in mind, ‘Bewildered Former Devil’ asks:

‘Isn’t the Practice Direction effectively changing the Rules? If so, why isn’t this being done by Statutory Instrument like all other amendments to the Rules to date?

There is nothing I can see in Section 48 (the Courts of Justice Acts and the Courts Officers Acts) allowing the President to unilaterally change the Rules of the Superior Courts.

Also, perhaps the committee indeed have met and sanctioned this change by statutory instrument but then presumably the Master (a current member of the Superior Courts Rules Committee) would have known about it in advance.  Mr Honohan said last night on [RTÉ One’s] Prime Time that he didn’t.’

Anyone?

Earlier: “It Is, In Fact, The Way The Job Should Be Done”

Yesterday: Here Comes The Pane

Meanwhile…

Peter Kelly.

The people’s judge.

In a wide-ranging interview with ‘The Parchment’, the magazine of the Dublin Solicitor’s Bar Association (DSBA), Mr Justice [Peter] Kelly — head of the Commercial Court — said there should be an independent body to appoint judges.

The tough-talking judge, who has ruled out ever going to the Supreme Court, also claimed some people who would make excellent judges were “passed over” in favour of others who were not so well qualified.

“It’s purely political in any event, the appointments to that court, and I never had any politics…I always thought the ideal age for the bench was 50. I was 46 then, so I was some years short of that. On the other hand, in the absence of political involvement, was I ever going to get the opportunity again?”

 

Supreme Court Posts ‘Purely Political’, Says Kelly (Irish Independent)

The Parchment