The work carried out by the Courts Service and the judiciary in recent months has aimed to ensure continued access to justice for those who most need it in these unprecedented times, writes High Court President Ms Justice Mary Irvine.

However, although the Courts Service is exempt from current virus regulations, that does not mean that it can operate blind to the fact that, to date, 2,052 Irish citizens have died as a result of COVID-19.

It is important that all practitioners and court users understand that the work of every division of the High Court has, from the onset of COVID-19, been kept under constant review.

The objective of the Courts Service has been to prioritise and maximise the work that can be done safely during this pandemic, whilst minimising the risk of infection. 

Obviously, during periods of greatest risk, a different approach is warranted to that which would be appropriate during a period of low community transmission. 

Given the objectives of Government in imposing level-five restrictions, the high incidence of infection in the community, and the risk of infection to court staff, litigants, members of the public and the legal profession, it has not been possible to keep the entirety of the Courts Service open during this period.

The strong public-health advice has been that for the duration of level-five restrictions, all unnecessary travel and interpersonal contact should be avoided.

Civil cases and remote hearings

Maintaining access to justice for the greatest number of people has seen the transfer of as much High Court work as possible on to remote platforms – creating virtual remote courts.

The advantages of such an approach are obvious.

Unlike physical hearings, remote hearings should be able to proceed regardless of the level of restrictions imposed by Government at any given time.

Another advantage is that remote hearings significantly reduce the numbers of people attending at the Four Courts.

And, it was this reduction that made it possible to safely resume personal-injury actions last September.

Personal injury cases

The permitted footfall for the Four Courts was almost entirely given over to personal injury cases.

More than half of the civil work of the High Court has moved on to remote platforms.

This has been a ferociously difficult undertaking, particularly because that work had to be carried out while keeping all priority litigation running.

The technical work, training and organisation required to achieve this objective has been very demanding and has placed an unseen additional burden on court staff and resources.   

However, so successful has the project been that since the start of October the demand for remote hearings has exceeded the number of judges available on any given day in the judicial review/non-jury/chancery/asylum/commercial and strategic infrastructure development lists.

So, whilst it is true to say that civil actions involving witnesses in these divisions have been temporarily postponed, they have been replaced by equal numbers of remote cases and applications.

There has been no overall reduction in the amount of work being dealt with on the civil side of the High Court – beyond the temporary suspension of personal injuries cases during the currency of level-five restrictions.  

And, having regard to COVID-19 considerations, it would be irresponsible to list witness cases – which carry a much greater risk in terms of the transmission of infection – at the expense of remote cases which carry nothing close to the equivalent risk.

Furthermore, it remains the case that any urgent applications can be heard in the High Court during the currency of level-five restrictions. 

Personal-injury cases 

The permitted footfall for the Four Courts was almost entirely given over to personal-injury cases.

However, so successful has the project been that, since the start of October, the demand for remote hearings has exceeded the number of judges available on any given day in the judicial review/ non-jury/ chancery/ asylum/ commercial and strategic infrastructure development lists.  

Suspension

There has been no overall reduction in the amount of work being dealt with on the civil side of the High Court – beyond the temporary suspension of personal-injuries cases during the currency of level-five restrictions.  

Furthermore, provision was made to allow all urgent personal-injury cases to proceed.

While it is regrettable that any litigant would have their hearing date delayed for even this short period, the decision to postpone these non-urgent cases must be viewed in the context of the public-health crisis in which it was made.

It is also likely that if these cases had not been adjourned that there would have been a high level of successful applications for an adjournment based upon COVID-19 considerations.

Relevant also to the postponement of these non-urgent cases is the fact that all but a tiny percentage (3%) of personal-injury cases settle.

I am fully aware of the effect of cancelling personal-injuries cases on the income of the legal profession.  

In these circumstances, it is not sustainable, as I have heard it argued, that non-urgent personal-injury litigation or other civil-witness cases should be afforded equal priority to criminal trials at this time. 

Endeavours

I would like to end this short update by commending the members of the legal professions for the assistance and support they have given to us thus far in our endeavours to support the continuation of personal-injury litigation, in these very difficult and unique times.

As practitioners know, personal-injuries actions will recommence tomorrow (Tuesday 1 December).

And, I would like to assure them that I will continue to give them as much support as I can, subject only to the requirement that I fulfil my role as President of the High Court with the administration of justice, safely delivered, as my primary objective.