Straitened times have led to an increase in litigation before the courts involving lay litigants or litigants in person acting without formal legal representation. Notwithstanding that such litigants may not have instructed a solicitor or barrister, they sometimes appear with assistance from a non-legally qualified third party. Recent practice directions across the various levels of the court provide important guidance on the scope of such assistance.
A recent Court of Appeal decision has restored certainty that under Irish law there is no general duty of good faith in the context of commercial contracts. The decision has a wide application and is of interest to all parties across the entire spectrum of commercial contractual arrangements. It clarifies important questions in relation to the proper approach to the interpretation and implication of terms in a commercial contract.
Two new statutory instruments (SI 254/2016 and SI 255/2016), which make wide-ranging reforms to the procedural rules applicable to civil litigation, recently entered into force. However, a number of the rules contained in SI 255 are dependent on the assignment of list judges and registrars to the chancery and non-jury lists. The High Court has stated that it does not intend to assign either list judges or registrars until the necessary resources have been put in place.
In a recent case, the High Court upheld a centuries-old prohibition on litigation funding by a third party in return for a share of the proceeds with the party that has a genuine interest in the case. Both parties sought leave for a leapfrog appeal of the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that this case did in fact meet the 'exceptional circumstances' requirement to justify a leapfrog appeal.
The Central Bank's inquiry process received resounding endorsement by the High Court in decisions against two former directors of the Irish Nationwide Building Society, Michael Fingleton and John Stanley Purcell. In July 2015 the Central Bank published a notice of inquiry confirming that it was to investigate alleged regulatory breaches. Fingleton and Purcell brought separate challenges aimed at overturning the decision, but the claims were recently dismissed.