Mick Parker
DECISION of THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT 16th November, 2011 Language is important. A defendant in a case of the types listed in Order 2 of the Rules of the Superior Courts is, apparently, not ipso facto entitled to defend the claim unless the plaintiff says he may. Instead, he must first obtain from the Court �leave to defend� (O. 37, r.10). The phrase is unfortunate and, historically, originated in the procedures of another era. It is peculiarly inappropriate in the present age in which citizens enjoy the full panoply of human rights, including, of course, the right to a fair hearing before the Courts. The Rules of Court do not specify what the defendant needs to show if he is to succeed in resisting the plaintiff�s application for summary judgment. Note that any defendant refused �leave to defend� has only one further avenue of redress: an appeal to the Supreme Court. For a litigant in person, a self-representing or �lay� litigant, this is a mountain to climb. To passers by, this does not look like even handed justice. This is AIB Vs Collins, this has value werever you are.... >>> http://www.courts.ie/offices.nsf/0/9EB6A8A0BF49CE3D8025743B004C6AB6