The Law Society has described some aspects of proposed legislation covering the centralisation of court offices as “unsatisfactory”.

The Law Society has made a submission on the general scheme of the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021, which provides for amendments to provisions across a range of civil and regulatory law.

The bill includes changes to court-related acts that will facilitate the centralisation and automation of certain court offices.

Adequate notice

One part of the bill says that the Courts Service “shall” publish notice of the specification of a centralised court office, but that failure to publish shall not affect the validity of the specification.

The Law Society believes that, in addition to requiring that notice be published, the provision should also require that publication must be made a specified number of days before the proposed start date.

“Adequate notice of such specification is essential to members of the profession, particularly if, as a result of the decision made, a specified business will be transacted exclusively in the centralised court office from the specified date,” the submission says.

As the representative body for solicitors, the Society also wants to be included in the consultation process on the loss or combination of court offices. The bill proposes a consultation process involving the chief justice or president of each court.

'Discriminatory'

The Law Society also expresses concern about heads 19 and 20 of the bill, which outline the requirements for appointment to the positions of Master and Deputy Master of the High Court.

It argues that the proposals impose “unduly restrictive” conditions for appointment to the role of Master of the High Court, and reflect an “unacceptable bias” towards barristers.

“To provide, in law, that solicitors would be excluded from competing for the role is, in our view, both directly and indirectly discriminatory,” the submission says

The Law Society welcomes a proposed increase of five judges, but believes that this will not be enough to deal with the current backlog in the courts. It adds that there should be scope within the legislation to recruit more judges to the lower courts.

The submission also argues that some of the proposed changes to the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 – including a reduction in the ‘reckonable residence’ required for minors seeking to be naturalised – do not go far enough.