LEGAL QUACKERY & AN “OVERWHELMING MIASMA OF FAKE LAW” : OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND OBSTRUCTING THE COURT SYSTEM
I usually confine this blog to cases relating to the law in England and Wales. However the judgment of Noonan J in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank -v- Martin & anor  IEHC 707 was brought to my attention by an Irish barrister, Tim O’Connor. It is an extreme illustration of a common problem, not just in the High Court of Ireland.
The claimant bank claimed for moneys due under a mortgage loan that had not been paid. The property had been repossessed and sold. The claim was for the balance due. The defendants defended the case on various grounds.
INCORPORATING A RULE INTO THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES
Someone could usefully draw the attention of the Rules Committee to Order 40 rule 4 of the Rules of the Superior Court. Affidavits are more commonly used than witness statements. Efforts have been made within the rules to confine these to matters of fact.
“Affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the witness is able of his own knowledge to prove, and shall state his means of knowledge thereof, except on interlocutory motions, on which statement as to his belief, with the grounds thereof, may be admitted. The costs of any affidavit which shall unnecessarily set forth matters of hearsay or argumentative matter, or copies of or extracts from documents, shall not be allowed.”
If this were applied in the Civil Procedure Rules I estimate that 80% of costs would be disallowed in 80% of the witness statements I see. Witness statements are regularly argumentative and set out extracts of documents. More often than not they set out extracts from case law as well.