Gabriel Coffey v Tara Mines Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice O'Neill |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] IEHC 249 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [1994 No. |
| Date | 31 July 2007 |
BETWEEN
AND
[2007] IEHC 249
THE HIGH COURT
COURTS
Jurisdiction
Inherent jurisdiction - Right of audience - Right to legal representation - Right of access to courts - Whether settled common law principle that only parties to legal proceedings and qualified lawyers enjoy right of audience is without exception - Whether there are any circumstances where plaintiff can claim right to be represented by unqualified advocate - Whether wife of plaintiff can represent plaintiff in legal proceedings where plaintiff can no longer represent himself and no satisfactory alternative legal representation available - Whether court having inherent jurisdiction to manage and control affairs - Battle v Irish Art Promotion Centre Ltd [1968] IR 252 distinguished; Re GJ Mannix Ltd [1984] 1 NZLR 309 adopted - Finding for plaintiff (1994 3916P & 4010P - O'Neill J - 31/7/2007) [2007] IEHC 249
Coffey v Tara Mines
The plaintiff had commenced civil proceedings against the defendant seeking damages for personal injuries suffered owing to the alleged negligence of the defendant. In the meantime, the plaintiff suffered a disability such that he was unable to express himself clearly and his solicitor had been permitted to come off record for him. The plaintiff's wife was unable, despite her best efforts, to secure alternative professional legal representation and therefore applied to the High Court for leave to represent the plaintiff in his civil proceedings against the defendant.
Held by Mr Justice O'Neill in acceding to the application that there was an inherent jurisdiction in the High Court to manage and control its own proceedings and in rare and exceptional cases to permit an unqualified advocate to represent another litigant. The combination of circumstances including the adjournment of the trial at a late stage, the collapse in the relationship between the plaintiff and his former legal advisers, the occurrence of the serious illness which rendered the plaintiff incapable or representing himself, the fact that he was of sound mind, the inability of the plaintiff's wife, despite best efforts, to secure alternative legal representation and the refusal of the Legal Aid Board to provide legal aid for her, amounted to such a rare and exceptional case.
Reporter: P.C.
2007 9 1857 2007 IEHC 249
PML (B) v PH (J) & PH (J) & CO & INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND UNREP 5.5.1992 (EX TEMPORE)
S (A) (ORSE B (A)) v B (R) 2002 2 IR 428 2001 21 5790
MANNIX LTD, IN RE 1984 NZLR 309
SCRIVEN v JESCOTT (LEEDS) LTD 1908 53 SJ 101
LONDON TRAMWAYS COMPANY v LONDON CO COUNCIL 1898 AC 375 13 TLR 254
FRINTON & WALTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL v WALTON & DISTRICT SAND & MINERAL CO LTD 1938 1 AER 649
TRITONIA LTD v EQUITY & LAW LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY 1943 AC 584
KINNELL & CO LTD v HARDING, WACE & CO 1918 I KB 405
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice O'Neill delivered on the 31st day of July 2007
By order of this court made on the 25th day of April, 2006 (Johnson J.) it was ordered that a preliminary issue be tried as to the issue of whether Sandra Coffey the wife of the plaintiff can represent the plaintiff in all proceedings before the court in respect of his claims against the defendants.
On the trial of that issue before me Sandra Coffey appeared in person, the defendants were represented by solicitor and counsel. The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland appeared and through counsel offered the court assistance. The Attorney General appeared represented by a solicitor and counsel and made submissions on the issue to be tried, as amicus curie. The solicitor on record for the plaintiff was represented by counsel and he also filed an affidavit.
The background to this matter is as follows.
The plaintiff in this case Gabriel Coffey initiated two sets of High Court proceedings against the defendants as indicated in the title hereof. In the first of these under record number [1994] 4010P, the plaintiff claimed damages in respect of dermatitis contracted by him July 1991 in the course of his employment with the defendants and also in respect of a shoulder injury suffered by him on the 19th May, 1992, also in the course of his employment. In the second action under record number [1997] 3916P, the plaintiff claimed damages in respect of a neck and head injury sustained by him on the 15th May, 1995 as a result of a fall in the course of his employment with the defendants. These actions came on for hearing together before Johnson J. In respect of the action under record number [1994] 4010P liability was conceded by the defendants and it therefore proceeded as an assessment of damages. Liability was contested in the second action. The trial of these actions was adjourned by Johnson J. on the 16th November, 2000 because certain witnesses were not available and it is suggested that a map had not been produced. The trial has not since been resumed.
It is apparent that this has come about because of a number of factors, namely very serious illness on the part of the plaintiff and a complete breakdown in the professional relationship between the plaintiff and his solicitor. As a result of the latter, serious allegations have been made against the solicitor and complaints have been made to the Law Society. It is wholly unnecessary for me to embark upon any inquiry into these allegations and I make no finding whatsoever in relation to them.
In his affidavit the solicitor on record for the plaintiff exhibited a document under the title "Form of Authority" whereby the plaintiff authorised his wife Sandra Coffey to act in his stead in all matters relating to his affairs and in specifically these court cases and indeed other litigation as well. Mr. Keane informed the court that he was satisfied that this document was an authentic document and he indicated to the court that he was willing to consent to an order taking him off record as acting for the plaintiff in these proceedings. Mrs. Coffey indicated to the court that she, acting with the authority of her husband wanted Mr. Keane discharged as solicitor for the plaintiff in the case.
Consequent upon the foregoing I made an order taking Mr. Keane off record as acting for the plaintiff in both sets of proceedings.
The second problem which clearly has delayed the resumption of the trial in these actions has been the health of the plaintiff.
A letter dated the 28th June, 2006 from the Department of Neurosurgery, Beaumont Hospital was opened to the court. It is in the following terms:
"RE: GABRIEL COFFEY, COOLFORE ROAD, ARD BRACCAN, NAVAN, CO. MEATH. DOB 12/11/1946.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This gentleman suffered a spontaneous intra cranial haemorrhage in April, 2005 from a ruptured aneurysm.
He required surgery to deal with this and as a consequence of his illness and subsequent treatment, he has been left with a significant speech impediment, being unable to express himself.
Following his recent review I think that it would be very unlikely that this will resolve completely in the future and as a consequence, he will need significant assistance in trying to make himself understood and will probably require other people to speak on his behalf to recount previous events.
If any further information is required please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours faithfully,
Daniel Rawluk
Consultant Neurosurgeon."
A further letter dated 5 July, 2006 from Dr. Declan O'Keeffe, Consultant Anaesthetist/Pain medicine was opened to the court and it is in the following terms:
"Re: Gabriel Coffey, Ard Braccan, Navan, Co. Meath.
To whom it may concern:
Mr. Gabriel Coffey has been a patient in my service since October, 13th 1995. He has chronic cervical pain.
In 1997 under the care of Mr. John Sutcliffe, Royal London Hospital, he received two intra mural rhizotomies for this condition. Following these procedures he had a reduction of his pain and returned to work. Unfortunately, he fell at work resulting in a fracture to his femur. Since this secondary incident he has a recurrence of his headaches.
My impression is that Mr. Gabriel Coffey has significant cervical pain and this was only temporarily abated by his intra mural rhizotomies. Unfortunately the pain has recurred since then. Following your well documented report from Mr. Daniel Rawluc, you will see that that Mr. Gabriel Coffey is currently unable to give evidence for himself. I am happy to give evidence on his behalf to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter for Mount Carmel Medical Group (South Dublin) Ltd
...appear to have been presented to Charleton J. in the context of those proceedings. As O'Neill J. observed in Coffey v. Tara Mines [2008] 1 I.R. 436, "[i]t is a well settled principle of our system of jurisprudence that what is not argued is not Conclusion 111 For the reasons set out in the......
-
A.C. & Others v Cork University Hospital & Others
...was subject only to “rare exceptions” where the general rule would cause “particular injustice”. Such rare exceptions include Coffey v. Tara Mines [2008] 1 IR 436, where Ó Néill J. allowed a wife to represent a husband, where the latter would otherwise not be able to make his case due to d......
- Stella Coffey v Environmental Protection Agency
-
Allied Irish Bank Plc v Aqua Fresh Fish Ltd
...It is accepted that such discretionary jurisdiction identified by the High Court (O'Neill J.) in Coffey v. Tara Mines Limited [2008] 1 I.R. 436 (' Coffey') and approved of by the Supreme Court in Stella Coffey exists. 7 Counsel for the Company and Mr. Flynn contends for a broader approach.......
-
Inherent jurisdiction and inherent powers of irish courts
...the view that committal proceedings ought first to _____________________________________________________ 113 Coffey v. Tara Mines Ltd . [2008] 1 I.R. 436. 114 HI v. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, on the Application of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees [2003......