The Governments new affordable housing plan that will see the State take up to 30% equity to help finance the purchase of a new home. Housing Minister Darragh O’Brien has said the new scheme will have no arbitrary salary caps. The introduction of a shared equity scheme will be in conjunction with the Help-To-Buy initiative and will assist those buyers currently locked out of the market,many of whom are caught in a rental trap.

Under the scheme the government takes an equity loan share of up to 30% in your home while the owner takes out a mortgage with a bank on the remainder.It

will be open to all new build homes subject to price caps and is targeted at first time buyers. The government believes the new support will save potential owners up to €11,000 per year in rent and in the long term save the state rental support payments.

An initial €75 million has been set aside by the government for the scheme for 2021, and will be boosted with additional private investment.This is is separate to the €135 million being invested in the cost rental affordable measure and €150 million for the Help-To-Buy scheme.

The launch of the scheme will take place in the summer 2021.

1. Set yourself a deadline and focus

It can be a daunting and stressful time deciding on spending your life savings on a house that you want to love however it doesn’t have to go on forever. You can easily find the house of your dreams and sale agreed in less than 12 months after starting your initial search. Having a set deadline you will be more selective in what you go to see when you are counting how many Saturdays you have left for viewings.

Following the steps below will help you become a confident, clear-thinking and focused buyer.

2. Do your homework

To be in the know about upcoming new homes schemes, register your interest ahead of time with the relevant agents to keep abreast of launch date viewings and developments. You will need proof of finance and documents from your bank showing an up to-date loan approval. When the bank is willing to fund you based on your current status, don’t presume it is going to last.

As a first-time buyer you are eligible for contributions and incentives so be sure to go to revenue.ie to get an application number. Another option is the Rebuilding Ireland loan or the new affordable housing scheme.

If trading up and you see something you like before you sell your existing property, you need to talk to the selling agent, it can take eight to 10 weeks before you get a signed contract so you need to keep the lines of communication open. The majority of agents will work with the vendor to help you sell however some developers won’t sell to someone with a home to sell, so you may have to wait until phase two.

3. Additional costs

In addition to the purchase price of the property there are other costs to consider.

The booking deposit is usually 2-5 % of the purchase price
Factor in stamp duty: the rate is 1%o f the purchase price on properties up to €1 million and 2 % on figures above €1 million.
There are solicitor’s fees; a flat fee or a percentage of the purchase price.
A bank valuation will cost another €150 and a surveyor’s report another €500.
 4. Location

Visit the neighborhood at different times of the day and night to get a feel for it. Note what amenities are within walking distance i.e nearest sports ground, gym, local classes for yourself and for children’s extra curriculum activities(which is a great way to make friends in a new area.) Where is the nearest supermarket, bus and rail commuter options, if you intend to drive to work -check the mileage and timings in rush hours. Consider the the ambient noise from overhead flight paths or busy roadsand do you feel safe.

5. Schools

In some housing estates the catchment boundaries bisect the same street or road, buyers need to do their own homework to find out if the development’s address falls within a certain school’s catchment area.

6. Move in, Mentally – clarify the finer details

 When you find a house you really like, assume you have bought it. On viewing day everything will be immaculate, so switch off lights to see rooms in real daylight. Look at the storage being offered is there sufficient room in each room or is there a need for more when factoring in wardrobes, drawers and full size bed or is there storage available under stairs, is converting the attic an option?

Look at outside space: Is there sufficient driveway/off-street parking, storage for bins/ bike especially if buying a mid-terrace unit, the orientation of the back garden or balcony. Is the site big enough to fit a shed/ play area for children or is there a nearby green.

7.Compare, contrast and snag list

What kind of finish does the property need? Take a note of; proposed finishes, flooring, kitchen, bathroom layouts and brands in the appliance package. So double-check what is included in the sale. When you make your decision, you then need to do a comprehensive snag list. If purchasing a new house you should be allowed to review the property before final handover. Go through it room by room, checking the level of finish in the paintwork, kitchen and wardrobe joinery and in bathrooms check the tiling and that the plumbing and toilets work.

8. Get a valuation

Once the property is sale agreed, you will need to arrange a valuation. Your lender will want a professional valuation completed before they formally agree to lend you the money to buy the property. Your lender who will base their formal loan offer on this valuation.

9. Home Insurance

Before your mortgage cheque is issued, you will need to have home insurance in place. If you are buying an apartment, buildings insurance should be part of your management fee, so you don’t need to arrange this yourself. However, you may still want to arrange contents insurance before you move in.

10. Mortgage Approved

Once all the conditions of the mortgage have been met, your lender will approve your loan for the property and the amount, and will send you a formal ‘letter of offer’ which sets out the details of the mortgage they are offering you. Your bank will send a copy of your letter of offer to your solicitor, along with other legal paperwork, so you should arrange to meet with your solicitor as soon as possible after getting your letter of offer.

11.Signing contracts

Your solicitor will explain and complete various documents with you. If you are happy with all the details, you formally accept the letter of offer from your lender, through your solicitor. Your solicitor will also check that the contracts are in order and if they are happy with the contracts. At this point you have legally agreed to buy the property.

You will then need to pay your deposit, usually 10-20% of the purchase price depending on whether you’re a first-time buyer or not. You pay your deposit to your solicitor, who will arrange to have it paid to the seller through their solicitor. Once the seller’s solicitor receives the signed contract and your deposit, in turn the sellers solicitor and seller will sign the contact.  At this point the seller has legally agreed to sell you their property. Both solicitors will arrange for a final closing date and time at which stage you will be given the keys to the property.

Once your lender is happy that they have all the paperwork, the mortgage cheque will be issued to your solicitor who will arrange to have these funds transferred to the seller through their solicitor.

12. Stamp duty

Stamp duty is the tax you pay when you buy a property. You will need to pay the money to your solicitor when they are closing the sale who will arrange to pay the stamp duty for you.

13.Local Property Tax – LPT

When buying or selling a property you may have to pay some or all of the Local Property Tax (LPT), which is charged on all residential properties in Ireland, depending on the time of year you buy or sell. The LPT currently falls due on 1 November each year. Visit Revenue’s website for more information on the LPT.

14. Registration Fees

Registration fees are the costs associated with registering the title with either the Registry of Deeds or the Land Registry. Fees can range from €400 to €800, depending on the value of the property. Get information on fees at www.prai.ie

15. Collect your keys and move in

Once the balance of the funds has been transferred to the seller by the agreed closing date and time, the estate agent will call you and explain that everything is in order for closing. If you are also selling a property you should try and exchange contracts and close on the same day so you can move straight into your new home, if possible.

It is also now your responsibility to make sure that the property is safe and secure, so if you are not moving in straight away you should still visit the property. Keep in mind that some insurance policies may not fully cover you if the house is vacant for an extended period of time. You may also want to consider changing the locks, as other people may have been given keys to the property by the previous owner.

We here at Doyle and Company have worked on purchases and sales, we are familiar with the issues that might arise and offer a competitive rate. We are approachable and have a well staffed conveyancing department. Your solicitor will explain the process, be proactive and deal promptly with all quires as they arise. Doyle and Company offer a truly professional service at a competitive price.

Woman awarded €12k after Starbucks employee drew a racist drawing on her coffee cup.

 Published 5 February 2021

Suchavadee Foley discovered a smiley face with “slanty”eyes drawn on the cup she ordered from a Starbucks in Dublin back on January 12, 2020. The interaction resulted in a €12,000 award to Ms Foley on the grounds of racial discrimination.

When placing her order, Ms Foley started to spell an abbreviated version of her name but was stopped by a laugh from the employee serving Ms Foley. The employee said that she would “draw eyes” instead, and Ms Foley, shocked and unsure how to react, simply laughed and said “okay”.

Ms Foley moved to sit down, and her boyfriend collected the disposable cup showing a drawing of a smiley face with “slanty eyes”. Ms Foley is of Thai-Irish heritage, and has been living in Ireland since she was six years of age. 

Ms Foley’s boyfriend immediately complained about the drawing at the counter and spoke with a supervisor. The supervisor apologised and offered vouchers, but Ms Foley did not want them.  They waited for the employee to approach them to apologise but, it later transpired in evidence that the employee was on her break.

Ms Foley lodged a complaint with the WRC under the Equal Status Acts, alleging discrimination on the grounds of race.

Defending an Equal Status claim

The company put the following points to Ms Foley setting out why it disputed the allegation of discrimination against it: 

1. It was a pleasant encounter, as Ms Foley was laughing.
2. The image was not offensive because it was drawn like an emoji.
3. It was not meant to be a racial slur. In fact, the employee thought that Ms Foley was very glamorous and did not mean any malice. 
4.Ms Foley agreed to the drawing. 

All of the above was disputed by Ms Foley, who said that she had never asked for the drawing to be made.

At the hearing, the employee apologised for the upset caused and spoke about her personal respect for Japanese-Brazilians (coming from Brazil herself). At the time, the employee was only one month in the job. She gave evidence to state that she felt the drawing of the image would help make it easy for her to identify Ms Foley. 

To bolster this defence, the company explained that it had a Harassment Policy and had provided training to its staff. It commented that the incident was a benign one, and that Ms Foley had not been treated less favourably than any others who would also have had drawings composed of them. 

 Outcome

In his conclusions, the Adjudication Offer (AO) felt that the drawing was a clear visual depiction related to Ms Foley’s race.  He commented that it was “as offensive and as unimaginative as a 19th century punch cartoon”.  

The AO confirmed that the conduct was unwanted.  The employee’s evidence, and her apology stating that she had not intended to humiliate or make Ms Foley feel uncomfortable, was accepted. That did not change the fact that the drawing had a degrading and humiliating effect on Ms Foley. The harassment occurred.

The AO held that the customer service training and harassment policy did not have sufficient information for staff to explain about the power that drawings and pictures may have on the recipient. Harassment is in the eye of the beholder. The company was held vicariously liable for the acts of its employee, notwithstanding that there was no malice attached to her actions, and she was trained.

Employer learnings

The employee was fully trained in customer service and harassment. Still, the reprehensible act occurred. The WRC assessed the extent of training provided to the employee and held that it did not go far enough, because it did not consider the impact that visual depictions selected by employees would have on members of the public. It is worthwhile to review policies, to ensure that the impact of inappropriate behavior should be assessed and discussed as part of training for employees.

Supreme Court issues ‘very significant’ ruling on right of parents and children

Published 26 January 2021

The Supreme Court has issued a “very significant” ruling in a case focusing on the medical treatment of an 11-year-old boy who suffered life-changing neurological injuries.

chilrens rights

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission submitted to the court that any decision in respect of the boy’s treatment had to be made in a manner that balanced and protected his constitutional rights as a child, with due regard to the rights of his parents. The Commission also queried whether the decision to make him a ward of court was a proportionate interference with his rights in circumstances where, the Commission argued, removed decision-making capacity from his parents.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a hospital may withhold life-sustaining treatment for a catastrophically injured child against the wishes of his parents.The court considered that the best interests of the child did not require the hospital to perform aggressive and invasive life-sustaining procedures because there was no realistic benefit to the boy except continued pain and suffering.

Background

The young boy suffered catastrophic brain injuries in July 2020 in an accident. He was brought to the Hospital and admitted to the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit. It was not expected that he would ever walk, talk, develop any meaningful awareness of his surroundings, be able to communicate or process information, or be capable of performing any voluntary movement. The uncontested medical opinion was that the brain injuries were permanent and irreversible.

One of the effects of John’s condition was dystonia, which is the painful, prolonged and involuntary contraction of John’s muscles. The Hospital was concerned that the medication doses required to control John’s dystonia might terminate his ability to breath and he would require further treatment in the PICU.

The parents argued that John would want to fight for life at any cost and just needed more time.They refused to consent to medical treatment which may cause John to stop breathing. In this context, the Hospital brought an application to the High Court seeking orders to withhold certain life-sustaining treatments and to administer medication to John even if the secondary effect was that John’s respiratory system would fail.

The case was originally commenced in the High Court under the wardship procedure, where the President of the High Court, made John a ward of court and granted the reliefs sought by the Hospital. Subsequently, the parents appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered several distinct submissions made by the parties, including the appropriateness of the warship procedure, whether the withholding of treatment amounted to euthanasia, and the best interests of the child.

Wardship

The parents had argued that it was not appropriate to use the wardship jurisdiction to make orders and claimed that plenary proceedings were the proper procedural action. The Court rejected this, stating that the wardship process was no less appropriate than plenary proceedings seeking declarations.

The court accepted it was generally not desirable for wardship to usurp the entire decision-making function of the parents in single-issue cases. Despite this finding, the court ruled that the wardship was sufficiently flexible to only encroach minimally on John’s life.

Euthanasia

The parents also contended that the orders sought by the Hospital in the case were constitutionally impermissible because they amounted to an acceleration of death and/or euthanasia. The Court rejected this submission, noting that the doctors were advocating for a move to palliative treatment rather than a deliberate act to end John’s life.

The court then turned to what it described as the central issue in the case, namely; whether the conscientious decisions of parents regarding treatment can be overridden when the consequence may be the potential death of their child. The court noted that Article 42A of the Constitution allowed the State to intervene if the parents failed in their duty to the child to the extent that the welfare of the child was prejudicially affected.

Critically, the court determined that, contrary to pre-Article 42A case law, the blameworthiness of the parents was no longer an essential feature of “parental failure” for State intervention, and that this failure need not amount to a complete abandonment of the parental role. The best interests of the child were the paramount consideration.

The parents’ consent to medical treatment was not solely an issue of family authority but rather an exercise in vindicating the rights of the child. The court acknowledged that court approval is prudent in disputed cases between parents and doctors.

Decision and conclusion

The court said the primary legal issue in the case was whether it was lawful for the Hospital to withhold medical treatment rather than whether the parents consented to same. The Hospital did not require the consent of the parents to withhold treatment but did require consent to administer the dystonia medicine which may have stopped John from breathing.

In light of the medical evidence in the case and giving weight to the parent’s position, the court reluctantly concluded that the refusal to assent to pain-relieving treatment for a dystonic episode was a failure of duty by the parents.

The court agreed that the orders regarding John’s treatment could be made on a contingent basis. The court ordered that the Hospital could administer such medications as might be necessary to stop dystonic episodes even if it resulted in the termination of John’s respiratory system. The court declined to approve the other orders from the High Court regarding John’s treatment because there was no indication that these treatments were in issue or that the parents would not consent to them. As such, the High Court decision was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

It is clear that this ruling is a very significant one in respect of the rights of parents and their children under the Constitution.

The new FLAC Traveller Legal Service has won the maximum possible payout for a woman who was discriminated against by a hotel wedding venue.

The case was adjudicated by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2018 and led to a “very significant outcome”, according to FLAC, whose Traveller Legal Service provided advice and prepared written submissions for the woman.

The hotel in question was shown to be responsive to the woman’s initial email enquiries regarding a booking for her wedding until such time as it was established that she was a Traveller, at which point the hotel adopted a dismissive attitude towards the woman and ceased engaging with her enquiries, preventing her from making a booking.

The solicitor with the Traveller Legal Service, said: “We are very pleased with the outcome. Our client was subjected to humiliating treatment by the hotel in question. This decision demonstrates that those engaging in commercial life stand to be penalized if they deny their goods or services to Travellers.”

FLAC CEOsaid: “What we at FLAC witness through our dedicated Traveller Legal Service is that many Travellers experience great difficulties when it comes to booking venues to celebrate the important events of their lives like weddings, holy communions and funerals.

“The decision by the WRC today shows that this kind of practice, which essentially amounts to a kind of social apartheid, will not be tolerated. It was also added: “FLAC will be writing to IHREC to suggest the need for a code of practice in relation to access to pubs, hotels and restaurants.”

The High Court has ordered that Ryanair must pay the State’s fees in its unsuccessful challenge of the legality of the Government of Ireland’s coronavirus travel advice.

Background

ryanair

In the principal judgment delivered in October 2020, the court considered the appropriate costs order to be made. Each party maintained that its costs should be paid by the other side.

Costs are dealt with in the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, which draws a distinction between a party who is “entirely successful” in proceedings, and a party who has only been “partially successful”. The default position is that a party who is entirely successful in civil proceedings is entitled to an award of costs unless the court, in the exercise of its discretion, orders otherwise. The reasons for such an order must be stated.

That default position does not apply where a party has only been “partially successful”, it was noted that a court should consider the particular nature and circumstances of the case, and the conduct of the proceedings by the parties.

The parties agreed on the principles governing an application for costs in circumstances where the moving party asserts that their proceedings had advanced a public interest.

Issue of costs

The judge said that in exercising its discretion on costs, a court must seek to ensure that individuals are not deterred by the risk of exposure to legal costs from pursuin

g litigation of a type which, although ultimately unsuccessful, nevertheless serves a public interest. A court must also guard against the possibility of unmeritorious litigation being inadvertently encouraged by “an overly indulgent costs regime”.

The proceedings were taken by “a well resourced company in pursuit of its own commercial interests”. While the fact that an applicant has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of judicial review proceedings does not in any way preclude them from availing of a modified costs order, the rationale for the making of such orders is to ensure that the risk of having to p

ay the other side’s costs does not deter parties from pursuing proceedings which are in the general public interest. This rationale is not engaged where an applicant has the financial resources and commercial incentive to pursue litigation undeterred by costs concerns.

The judge also found that the proceedings were also not of such general public interest as to justify a departure from the default rule on costs. Ryanair, represented by Arthur Cox, argued that while its application for judicial review was ultimately dismissed, it had successfully resisted the State’s preliminary objections that the impugned travel advice was non-justiciable.

However, the judge found these preliminary issues did not add materially to the length of the proceedings nor to the volume of documents, because they were “so enmeshed with the substantive merits of the case that it would be artificial to attempt to sepa

rate them out”.

Ryanair was in support of the proposition that costs should be awarded to an applicant where proceedings have become moot as a result of a unilateral act on the part of the respondent public authority. However, the judge noted that Ryanair had successfully argued, at hearing, that the proceedings were not moot. The judgment “expressly rejected a plea that the subsequent introduction of a legislative basis for the measures rendered the proce

edings moot”. The court found that it was not permissible for Ryanair, having adopted that position, to commit a volte face in inviting the court to allocate costs on the basis that proceedings were moot.

To Concluded

Ryanair was ordered to pay the State’s costs. Aer Lingus, the notice party, is to bear its own costs.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the defendants in a personal injuries action must provide further information to the plaintiff about a “bald denial” in their defence.

The plaintiff had argued that section 13 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 required the defendant to provide “full and detailed particulars of each denial or traverse” in the defence and said that the defendant had failed to do so.

The High Court had refused the plaintiff’s application for particulars on the basis that the pleading in question was a denial rather than a positive ground of defence. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision and required the defendant to provide the requested particulars of pleading.

Background

The plaintiff, Mr Daniel Crean, had a hip replacement operation in 2015, which was carried out by Mr James Harty at Victoria Hospital Cork. Mr Crean had two previous operations on his hip and, after the 2015 operation, he developed peripheral neuropathy in his right leg. He sued Mr Harty, Victoria Hospital and the Health Service Executive for damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff alleged that the third operation had significant risks associated with it due to the previous surgeries and that the defendants failed to inform him of this. As such, he pleaded that the surgery had been performed with his informed consent.

Separate defences were delivered by Mr Harty and the Hospital and the HSE, but contained identical defences in relation to the informed consent allegation. The defences contained a simple denial that the defendants failed to obtain the plaintiff’s informed consent prior to the surgery. The plaintiff’s solicitors subsequently wrote to the defendants’ solicitors seeking further particulars of the denial, including the precise advice which was allegedly given to the plaintiff, the people who gave the advice and whether the advice had been provided to the plaintiff in writing.

The defendants’ solicitors claimed that it was not appropriate for the plaintiff to raise particulars of “straight denial” in a personal injuries defence and refused to provide any further information to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then issued a motion to compel the defendants to reply to their notice for particulars, but this was refused by the High Court. As such, the plaintiff appealed the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal

The plaintiff argued in the Court of Appeal that the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 was enacted to provide “maximum disclosure” in personal injuries litigation. It was submitted to the court that section 13(1)(b) of the Act required the defendants to give full and detailed particulars of the denial that the defendants failed to obtain informed consent. In response, the defendants said that the requirements under the 2004 Act were complied with by pleading a “straight denial.” They argued that the plea was not a positive plea making allegations, but rather a negative plea which put the plaintiff on proof of his case. The defendants also claimed that the particulars were an impermissible attempt by the plaintiff to seek evidence from the defendants via a notice of particulars.

The court determined that the particulars were necessary for the plaintiff to establish the case he had to meet at trial. Giving the judgment of the court, Mr Justice Maurice Collins said that the denial by the defendants in this case was, in substance, a positive plea that the defendants had obtained informed consent prior to the operation. The defendants had simply denied every aspect of the risks which the plaintiff alleged in the case and this meant that the plaintiff was unaware of exactly what the defendants were alleging in their defence. For example, the plaintiff did not know whether the defendants case was that “the alleged risks identified in the Summons were in fact risks of the surgery at all or whether, though accepting that such risks arose, their position is that they were not, in the circumstances, under a duty to advise of such risks or whether, in fact, they assert that the Plaintiff was advised of those risks and gave (informed) consent on that basis.”

Moreover, the court also held that the requirements in the 2004 Act “put the matter beyond doubt.” The court said that the provisions of the Act were intended to ensure that parties plead their cases with greater precision so that the actual issues are clearly identified prior to the trial. The court rejected the defendants submissions that a “bald denial” satisfied the requirement of the 2004 Act, saying that this argument was “swept away by the unambiguous and imperative terms” of the Act. The mere fact that a plea is expressed in the negative, such as a denial, does not mean that the defendants were not required by the Act to provide further particulars of that plea.

The court also rejected the assertion that the plaintiff was seeking evidence rather than facts. The court, citing Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell in Quinn Insurance (In Administration) v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers IESC 19, held that if particulars are necessary in a case to allow a party to prepare for trial, it is immaterial if those particulars disclose some evidence to that party. Here, the particulars did not go beyond what the defendants’ defence was to the issue of informed consent, the court said.

Conclusion

The court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal and ordered the defendants to provide the further and better particulars to the plaintiff.

Published 24 December 2020

© Irish Legal News Ltd 2021

At the Circuit Civil Court this December the Judge has given approval for a school injury compensation settlement of €26,000. An 8-year old girl injured her left ring finger when it was crushed by a fire escape door which shut on top of it accidentally.

The Circuit Civil Court was informed, that the little girl was just six years of age when the incident in question occurred at her school. The action was being taken against the Department of Education and Skills on the grounds of negligence in relation to the maintenance of the door at Gaelscoil Inse Choir, Islandbridge, Dublin, just over two years ago in 2018.

The judge was informed that the fire escape door had been shut on her hand by a different student. It quickly became apparent that the girls finger had been seriously injured and she was taken to Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin to have the ailment treated.

Seven months after the incident, A diagnosis decreeing that she still had not made adequate progress in her rehabilitation. Due to this she underwent a surgical procedure to have her left ring finger nail removed while she was placed under general anaesthetic.

Shortly after this surgical procedure, according to the father of the youth, she developed a viral infection and had to be medically treated with a course of antibiotics. The Judge was informed that she has now made a full recovery from the injuries that she sustained.

The defendant’s agreed with a settlement offer of €26,000.

Family law motion lists before the Dublin County Registrar, which have been adjourned since 22 October, have been listed for hearing on Thursdays and Fridays during December.

The 11 December hearings were subject to all current public-health restrictions. Once the adjourned motions hearings were relisted, new matters will then issue in due course. The list to fix dates are to be heard on 17th of December.

Public-health guidelines are to be followed.

Arrangements are in place to ensure compliance with HSE distancing requirements. Practitioners should only attend court at their scheduled time. All matters will be dealt within line with public-health guidelines.

Practitioners should note the following:

1 .Attend court at the appointed time as there are no waiting facilities.
2. There will not be a second call due to the current restrictions,
3. Only one representative for each party is to attend court to deal with the matter,
4. Motions will not be transferred to the judge's list for hearing on the same day,
5. The parties must leave court and take all belongings at the expiry of the allotted time,
6. All affidavits and exhibits musts be filed in the Circuit Court Family Law Office not later than 72 hours prior to the hearing. When filing documents for upcoming court attendance, it must be ensured the court office is notified of the correct record number, date and time of hearing of the matter,
7. The moving party must do same.

We here at Doyle and Company have been continuously trading through Covid 19 and are happy to be back at court defending clients cases again.

December 05 2020

A couple who claimed they were exposed to toxic chemicals after a spray foam insulation was installed in their home have been awarded over €2m.

The judge came to the conclusion beyond any doubt whatsoever that the injuries the couple sustained were life-altering serious injuries. These injuries were as a result of this exposure to the chemicals in the foam that had been injected into the roof. Thus on the balance of probabilities the judge found that due to the nature and extent of the injuries they were due to exposure to the chemical Isocyanate.

The Judge said the insulation foam product itself is “essentially safe” if properly applied with the proper safeguards. However the installer was found negligent in failing to advise the couple were required to be out of the house during the spraying and for at least two hours afterwards and in failing to communicate with them the potential risks and hazards involved in the product if the safeguards were not adhered to.

The couple had sued, claiming they were exposed to fumes and toxic chemicals and that they and their young daughter had to leave the dream home they had built near the sea in Donegal as they did not feel safe there. The family now live in a mobile home. The plantiff told the court all three in the family had since become incredibly sensitised to certain products and “now live in a bubble".

The couple, paid €4,000 to have the insulation installed in their home four years ago. They had sued McGee Insulation Services, who was responsible for the installation and the application of spray foam insulation at the family home on February 18, 2016. They had also sued GMS Insulations, which imports and supplies spray foam insulation material. The claims were denied.

In the judgment yesterday, it found the couple were not at any stage appraised that their absence from the house was required as a matter of personal safety for themselves and their daughter.

The judge said she had no doubt whatsoever had the family been so appraised that they would have left the house with their daughter before the spraying commenced and none of the family would have returned until they were assured it was safe to do so.

Skip to navigation Skip to content

A very special visitor to our Cabra Office -Santa Clause, complying with our Covid precautions, had a consultation with Finnian Doyle to update his will.

After you have been injured in a personal accident by negligence of a third party which was not your fault and have suffered bodily injuries, we advise you to seek an experienced Personal injury solicitor. Despite disruptions due to Covid-19, the Injuries Board is still operating and accepting new claims.

Screen Shot 2020 11 30 at 13.28.50

Since July 2020 personal injury actions have resumed at the High Court after a four-month absence due to Covid-19 settling unheard personal injury cases.

The call over of cases is done remotely to avoid a large number of people congregating in court at any one time and lawyers have consultations and negotiations court should take place away from the Four Courts building.

Each courtroom has been assessed for capacity and the specified number of people is not to be exceeded while others concerned with a case at hearing must wait beyond the precincts of the courthouse until required.

Timelines

There are timelines that need to be adhered regardless of the Covid 19 shut-downs.

1. Initial letter of claim should be sent within 1 month of the accident - Section 8 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 provides that a letter of claim stating the nature of the wrong alleged must be provided to an alleged wrongdoer by a claimant within one month from the date of the cause of action”. Previously, the period for issuing this letter was “2 months from the date of the cause of action, or as soon as practicable thereafter.”

2. The claim must be issued within 2 years of the accident - You should also note the existence of the Statute of Limitations 1957 and the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003. These Acts set limits on the time one has to take a claim, the second anniversary of the incident or when it became apparent that the incident gave rise to a claim, your case becomes Statue Barred, this means that the Defendant can successfully say to the PIAB Board or Court that you have no claim because your Application or Court Summons did not issue within the two years. The Court would then be bound by the Statute of Limitations and would have to dismiss your claim.

Our Managing Partner Finnian Doyle has 40 years of experience in advising on personal injury litigation on behalf of our clients.

Do not hesitate to call our office on 018383388 how to start the process call us now for your consultation on personal injury claims to avoid further court hearing backlogs and discuss how to deal with the Injuries bo

Conveyance is a general term used to describe the process by which someone purchases a property and title to a property – all issues must be sorted out so that the title passes freely and there are no planning issues.

As well as that a purchaser can’t draw down a mortgage from a lending institution without a solicitor.

Ultimately a bank will always get the title deeds for a property over which it has a mortgage and they will require an undertaking with a solicitor’s certificate of title before they allow the purchaser to draw down the funds. They wouldn’t issue mortgage funds without a solicitor being appointed.

We charge a fixed fee. The fee charge will generally depend on the amount of work that needs to be done and also solicitors are obliged under Law Society regulations to notify clients of fees in advance of commencing any work. There would also be outlay of stamp duty which is currently 1% up to a value of €1 million, and land registry fees on top of that.

From a purchaser’s point of view one of the most important things they should do is have the property properly surveyed by a qualified engineer or architect to carry out the structural survey and make sure it is structurally sound.

One issue that prevails is that there would be some delay on the mortgage due to a probate or a planning issue. Client would have to make sure that the loan offer doesn’t expire. Banks will often put time limits on how quickly the mortgage holder has to draw down the funds, otherwise if that date passes one would have to reapply for a new loan offer. Making sure there are no plans for road widening or sewage plants – or any other item plans in the area that could influence the decision to purchase the property.

If its a straightforward transaction once the booking deposit is paid – you could have it completed in approximately eight to ten weeks.

Key advice?

· Cash buys remove the need to deal with the banks.

· Make sure not to go outside of the time limit for drawing down a loan from the bank – otherwise you might have to go through the process again.

Re: Doyle & Company LLP – New Structure of the Firm

Dear valued client,

We are writing to announce a change in the legal structure of Doyle & Company LLP.

Doyle & Company

Since 1982, the Firm’s founder Mr. Finnian G. Doyle has been trading as a sole trader under the name of Doyle & Company. The business trades from both premises at 123 Cabra Road, Dublin 7 and 1 Main Street, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15.

This year Caolán Doyle has become a Partner of the Firm and the Firm will now trade as a Partnership. Finnian Doyle remains as the Managing Partner.

The Legal Services Regulatory Authority has authorised Doyle & Company to operate as a Limited Liability Partnership (hereinafter “LLP”) and the firm commenced as an LLP on the 31 August 2020.

Doyle & Company LLP

Since the 31 August 2020, the firm now trades under the name Doyle & Company LLP. As per Section 123 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 the following applies to the firm:

(i) Subject to exemptions listed in the act, as of the relevant date (31 August 2020), a Partner in the LLP has no personal liability for any debts, liabilities, or obligations which are incurred for the purposes of carrying on the business of the LLP (whether these are liabilities of the LLP, of himself or herself, or another Partner or Partners in the LLP or of any employee, agent or representative of the LLP) and however such liability may arise;

(ii) In relation to (i) above, this only relates to the personal liability of Partners and does not prevent or restrict the enforcement against the property of the LLP or any debts, liabilities, or obligations.

(iii) From the relevant date (31 August 2020) the Partnership Act of 1890 applies to the LLP, to the extent that it is not inconsistent with chapter 3 of part 8 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.

Doyle & Company LLP is a Member of the Law Society of Ireland and is regulated by the Legal Services Authority and will continue to maintain this status. Our Professional Indemnity Insurers have been notified of the change and there will be no change to our Insurance Cover.

If you have any query in relation to the above, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Caolan Doyle of these offices on (01) 8383388.

Yours faithfully,

DOYLE & COMPANY LLP

This week was the last week before the summer recess to get a licensing court hearing . On Wednesday we had two applications running in the District Court for clients; a shop seeking permission to sell wine and a restaurant seeking permission to sell wine, beer and spirits. Both were successful. The courts will be closed in August as usual, but will be open in September this year.

Licensing applications require a month's notice to the relevant notice parties, so plans would have to start now for any establishment seeking to obtain a license in September . Doyle & Company

Eid Mubarak from all at Doyle & Company. We hope everyone has a great day.

The following is an account of current claims by Publicans against F.B.D. Insurance company;

Webp.net resizeimage 4Pressure is mounting on insurer FBD after businesses issue High Court proceedings against the company.The company behind Lemon& Duke, a pub in Dublin city centre, has launched a legal action against insurer FBD.

Mr Anderson is the incoming chairman of the Licensed Vintners Association (LVA) and has been outspoken about Ireland's insurance crisis, campaigning for premiums to be lowered. He collaborated with some of Ireland's most prominent rugby stars to open Lemon & Duke in 2016.

FBD is the biggest insurer to the licensed trade in Ireland. It is estimated that around 1,300 members of the LVA and the Vintners Federation of Ireland (VFI), which represent pubs in the Dublin area and nationwide respectively, are insured by FBD.

One of Ireland's most famous pubs became the latest business to issue High Court proceedings against the company. Sean's Bar, in Athlone, Co Westmeath, is taking action against FBD over its refusal to pay clients for business interruption claims during the Covid-19 crisis. Mr Sean Hanley said FBD informed him it would be "unreasonable" to expect the company to pay out on business interruption claims regarding Covid-19.

"The bizarre thing is they have exclusions in their policies, such as you can't claim in the event of a terrorist attack or a sonic boom, but there is no mention of a pandemic”.

Meanwhile, the Alliance for Insurance Reform has confirmed that Drury Porter Novelli, the firm handling its public relations, has notified the group it would no longer be doing so "due to a conflict of interests" because it was now handling PR duties for FBD.

Peter Boland, director of the Alliance Insurance Reform, said: "We note the development, but FBD have a serious case to answer with many of our members and they would be better resolving the situation quickly and fairly.

"No amount of PR and advertising will change that”. Adding "Drury are leaving us on good terms, it was a conflict of interests," he added. While Drury Porter Novelli when asked to comment, said it could not discuss client matters”.

Doyle and Company's advice to our clients is to examine their business/office/workplace policies. Particular emphasis being applied to the business interruption clause. Older policies, include cover in the cases of pandemics. In later years Insurance clauses excluded such eventualities.

Doyle and Company has initiated claims against several reluctant insurance companies. We have been shocked at the reaction to the legitimate business interruption claims. Insurance companies are effectively saying ”If we pay out on these claims we will go under!” “We are not doing that, so take your chances in Court.”

Doyle and Company is ready to take instructions, We will;

Use the best insurance professionals to interpret the clause or clauses.
Advise as to whether you have a legitimate claim.
If you have a claim, we will help collate your claim under various headings e.g loss of earnings, inability to pay rent, loss of profits etc.

Contact us at our Cabra Office by FreePhone 1800 644 444 or 01 838 33 88 and our Blanchardstown Office by FreePhone 1800 909 222 or 01 820 06661

Europeans Statutory obligation to provide a safe place of work.

Webp.net resizeimage 2

Hopefully we have passed the worst of the pandemic and there is hope in the air with the news that on May 18th 2020, we can slowly lift the restrictions, and enter the 5 stages of the Governments roadmap to re-open the country. Employers need to ensure a safe workplace for their staff as no one wants to be at risk, when they don’t need to be.

Under the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005 (as amended) an employer must provide a safe place of work. So before returning to the workplace the employer must conduct a risk assessment of the workplace to see what additional measures will need to be put in place to ensure a safe workplace, in the wake of COVID-19. Obviously, depending on the work environment this may vary, so some of the things that employers might need consider would be:

• Having hand santizers readily available;
• Appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), such as face masks, disposable gloves and PVC screens;
• Suitable mapping of 2m distance in the workspace;
• Dividers around workstations to ensure social distancing;
• Possibility of keeping doors open;
• More vigorous cleaning schedules;
• Encouraging working from home or new rota arrangements to ensure all staff are not at work at any one time
• How public spaces within the workplace will be managed to ensure social distancing is complied with, for example in the cafeteria, toilets and even meeting rooms;
• Whether visitors are permitted to attend the workplace, and if so what safety measures will be in place to protect both the visitor and the staff;
• Possibility of temperature checking and reporting mechanisms of issues relating to COVID-19; and
• Flexible working hours, particularly where staff members are using public transport to attend work.
• Staff should be encouraged to attend work by walking, cycling or use of their own car in the first instance, and thereafter if a staff member is reliant on public transport consideration to him/her attending work outside of rush hour.

Social distancing and Training

As we all know, social distancing is one of the key approaches being taking globally to help limit this pandemic. That being said, all of us will have encountered a scenario where someone hasn’t respected the social distancing rules. So what can employers do to help educate and protect their staff? Training is the best way to ensure safety, this includes:

• Virtual training prior to returning to the workplace, be it through Zoom or any other video conferencing mechanism;
• If markings are necessary to illustrate social distancing, this should be highlighted to staff. If the markings are there to help with social distancing from the general public, then staff should also be given training on how to manage people who do not comply with the requirements;
• Limitations on the number of people that may use the bathrooms, kitchens and other public areas to ensure appropriate distance is kept between staff members. This should also note each employee’s obligations to maintain cleanliness and report any concerns;
• Reporting mechanisms, both for any employee who believes he/she is portraying symptoms of COVID-19 and also for any employee who is concerned someone within the workplace is not complying with their obligations and potentially putting the business and/or their colleagues at risk;
• Staggered workplace or the potential for hotdesking (with cleaning requirements built in);
  Temperature checking of staff;
• Cleaning schedule and the obligation on all staff to help maintain a clean workplace;
• Staff socialising, other than by virtual methods, should be discouraged;
• Employers are responsible for providing a safe system of work for their staff, and in turn the employee becomes responsible for adhering with the measures being put in place. So by taking the necessary precautionary steps of doing a risk assessment, updating the safety statement, creating a relevant policy.

Our community based, approach, includes the provision of legal services and our investment in the local 1 Webp.net resizeimage 2area. We focus our sponsorship and marketing resources into the community, which, included (this year):

Local sponsoring as well a legal advisors to Naomh Fionbarra GAA Club.
Christ the King church and the local churches.
Irish Guide Dogs, Coffee Morning.
Threshold.
Local schools.

The community, first approach extends to pro bono work. We carry out community seminars for the elderly, advising on Wills, Enduring Powers of Attorney and Estate Planning. This year we have carried out seminars in Ballymun, The Church of the Precious Blood Street and Christ the King Church.

Two years ago, in reaction to the ongoing homeless crisis effecting our communities, we made the decision to donate 1% of conveyancing profits each year to homeless charities. We continued this practice this year in donating 1% of conveyancing profits to the Capuchin Day Centre. We are trying to encourage other colleagues to donate also and join what we have termed “the 1% Club”.

We are currently looking into supporting recent graduates and trainees seeking work. We take in local students for work experience and trainee solicitors year in year out. Our former and current employees have found this training hugely beneficial in both personal and professional growth. Doyle and Company are passionate about supporting the future generation in our community.

It has been an excellent year for Doyle & Company and it is thought that our community and client-based approach has served us well and continues to serve us well in the years to come.

These uncertain times will bring us closer as a community, Doyle and Company embraces this positive movement.

Doyle & Company

COVID 19 Legislation may protect Commercial Tenants from Property Eviction

In March, the Government introduced emergency legislation in order to protect residential tenants from eviction, due to consequences arising from COVID-19 pandemic.

The legislation was brought in at extreme speed and did not go through the usual vetting process.

It is come to fore in an injunction case brought in April, where a furniture business, Design Features Limited, claimed that it was unlawfully evicted under the Act.

Solicitors for the company said “while the legislation probably intended to include commercial arrangements, we believe that the wording did not do so”.

The application for Design Features was brought on an ex-parte basis, meaning only one side was represented, but it appears that the High Court, for now, may interpret the Act such that evictions in all tenancies, commercial and residential, are prohibited for as long as the Act is in operation.

As a result, commercial landlords should tread very carefully before seeking to evict commercial tenants during this period and until we get some judicial clarity by a final decision or a legislative amendment.

Make an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPOA) during Covid 19 (Coronavirus)

Despite the Covid 19 restrictions, we are still operating and have focused attention on finalising matters for sick or elderly clients.

We understand that our clients are eager to get their affairs in order during these uncertain times. In order to assist this we have set up a 5 step plan to allow you create an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPOA), while ensuring social distancing and minimising contact with others.

We will take EPOA instructions at anytime, anywhere within Dublin. Instructions can be taken by phone, email or post. You will be asked, ultimately to approve the final draft and an appointment will be arranged to attend at one of our offices near to you.

We can also arrange a house visit in order to sign your EPOA, if you cannot leave the house because you are elderly or have an underlying health condition.

5 steps to create your Enduring Power of Attorney (EPOA) during Covid 19 (Coronavirus)

Should you wish to proceed:

Please complete the attached form. #EPOA Form
Return it to our office by post or email (mail@doyleandcompany.ie)
One of our solicitors will contact you, to take your instructions and finalise your EPOA.
We will send you the EPOA for approval.
Once the EPOA is approved, we can arrange for execution.

Execution- This will involve attending our office for a few moments only, so that you can execute your EPOA correctly.

If you cannot attend our office, we can arrange to call to your house to witness your signature.

We have offices in Cabra, Dublin 7 and Blanchardstown, Dublin 15.

We are also arranging Wills for our clients.

Please call 018383388 or email mail@doyleandcompany.ie to start the process.

DOYLE & COMPANY

Making your Will during Covid 19 - Wills in 5 simple steps

Wills - Despite the Covid 19 restrictions, we are still operating and have focused attention on finalising wills for our elderly clients.

We will take Will instructions at any time, anywhere within Dublin. Instructions will be taken by phone preferably, email or post. You will be asked, ultimately to approve the final draft and an appointment will be arranged to attend at one of our offices near to you.

We can also arrange a house visit in order to sign your WIll, if you cannot leave the house, for whatever reason.

Should you wish to proceed:

Please complete the attached form. #Will Form
Return it to our office by post or email.
One of our solicitors will contact you, to take your instructions and finalise your will.
We will send you the will for approval.
Once the will is approved, we can arrange for execution.

We are also arranging Enduring Power of Attorneys for our clients.

DOYLE & COMPANY

Family Law Act 2019 - Introduces 2 year divorces.

On the 1st December 2019 the Family Law Act (2009) commenced, bringing significant changes to the practice of Family Law in Ireland. The 2019 Act followed the Referendum which approved a reduction in the waiting time for divorce. The requirement that a couple, lived separate and apart for a period of 4 years in the previous 5 years was amended, so that it changed to 2 years in the previous 3 years.

The Family Law (Divorce Act) 1996 sets out the requirements for entitlement to a divorce and it has essentially 3 elements:

1. That the spouses have lived apart for 4 out of the previous 5 years, that is now amended by the 2019 Act, so that spouses have lived apart for 2 years out of the previous 3 years are now entitled to apply for a divorse.

2. There is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation – this is unchanged by the 2019 Act.

3. Provisions are made for spouses and dependent family members as the Court considers proper, having regard to the circumstances, this remains unchanged by the 2019 Act.

What this means is that if you and your spouse are living apart for at least 2 years during the previous 3 years, you are entitled to issue divorce proceedings and obtain a decree of divorce.

Two year Divorce

It should be noted that the definition for living apart is quite wide and people who live under the same roof may be cosidered living apart from one another. If you have separated, but are still living in the same house albeit living separate lives, you maybe deemed to be living separate and apart and entitled to a divorce.

Judicial Separation

The 2019 Act made some changes to Judicial Separations. Previously the case was that you would of have to have physically lived apart for 1 year, only then could you have applied with your sposes consent for a Judicial Separation.

The 2019 Act changed this provision, so that if you have been living apart for 1 year you are entitled to a judicial separation, whether or not your spouse consents.

The Family Law Act 2019 has brought in important changes that must be considered carefully for anyone seeking a judicial separation or a divorce.

For further advice please contact Caolán Doyle, Partner in charge of our famiy law department.

This article is meant for an overview of the Act and it cannot be constituted as direct advice to you. The application of law is dependent on particular circumstances and you must take direct advice from a Solicitor in relation to your circumstances and how the law applies to you.

We take no responsibility in relation to anyone who acts or causes someone to act or neglects to do some act based on anything contained in this article.

Doyle & Company

Covid 19 - Office Open

Appoitnment by Phone & Email

Due to Covid 19 restrictions, the Office Building will be closed to the public for the week starting 16 March 2020, until further notice.

This measure has been taken to protect our staff and clients, and as part of our duty to the community.

We will still be open and working, but we will be engaging in Phone Consultations only.

In order to arrange a consultation, please contact our office on:

Cabra - 01 8383388 or mail@doyleandcompany.ie
Blanchardstown - 018200666 or mailb@doyleandcompany.ie

NEW BUSINESS – New business will be dealth with promptly by phone or email. We will be open and working, even though the doors are closed.

DOYLE & COMPANY

A software firm which sacked an office manager with an incurable degenerative disease while she was on sick leave has been ordered to pay her compensation of €46,000 .

In the case at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), A firm had been ordered to pay a former employee €23,000 after the WRC found the firm carried out a discriminatory dismissal against the woman.

In his decision, adjudication officer at the WRC, Stephen Bonnlander also ordered the firm to pay the employee an additional €23,000 for its refusal to make a reasonable accommodation of her disability in the workplace.

Mr Bonnlander stated the joint award takes cognisance of the hardship the womanh experienced as a result of losing her job and also the overall unreasonableness of the employer’s conduct and in particular, the manner in which it dismissed.

Woman secures €64,300 damages for personal injury after slipping in a Dunnes Stores supermarket. The plaintiff (Ms. Prior) brought action against Dunnes Stores after the incident at a Dunnes shop in which she slipped on a white liquid on the floor near the dairy fridge. The plaintiff claimed her feet shot out from under her and she fell heavily on her back.

Dunnes denied liability and also claimed contributory negligence. The judge, however, accepted expert evidence on behalf of Ms. Prior that the surface of the floor where the accident occurred was shiny and that a spillage would not have been readily visible to someone walking down the aisle.

In his judgment, Mr. Justice Anthony Barr ruled that Ms. Prior had established negligence. The judge said he was not making a finding of contributory negligence against Ms. Prior. He said she was a truthful witness.

In deciding the quantum of the award (€64,300), the judge accepted medical evidence on Ms. Prior’s behalf. Although some of her injuries have resolved, she will continue to have lower back pain in the future. He noted Ms. Prior, who is a dancer, accepted that since the accident she did high energy dance routines as part of her musical performances and other activities, some of which were posted on social media. Noting the online posts, Justice Anthony Barr said Ms. Prior was able to pursue fairly active sporting and recreation activities and it was clear she was “a fit young lady”. She would, however, have to adapt her lifestyle to take account of her condition. An award of €64,300 plus legal costs was made.

Woman secures €64,300 damages for personal injury after slipping in a Dunnes Stores supermarket. The plaintiff (Ms. Prior) brought action against Dunnes Stores after the incident at a Dunnes shop in which she slipped on a white liquid on the floor near the dairy fridge. The plaintiff claimed her feet shot out from under her and she fell heavily on her back.

Dunnes denied liability and also claimed contributory negligence. The judge, however, accepted expert evidence on behalf of Ms. Prior that the surface of the floor where the accident occurred was shiny and that a spillage would not have been readily visible to someone walking down the aisle.

In his judgment, Mr. Justice Anthony Barr ruled that Ms. Prior had established negligence. The judge said he was not making a finding of contributory negligence against Ms. Prior. He said she was a truthful witness.

In deciding the quantum of the award (€64,300), the judge accepted medical evidence on Ms. Prior’s behalf. Although some of her injuries have resolved, she will continue to have lower back pain in the future. He noted Ms. Prior, who is a dancer, accepted that since the accident she did high energy dance routines as part of her musical performances and other activities, some of which were posted on social media. Noting the online posts, Justice Anthony Barr said Ms. Prior was able to pursue fairly active sporting and recreation activities and it was clear she was “a fit young lady”. She would, however, have to adapt her lifestyle to take account of her condition. An award of €64,300 plus legal costs was made.

A man was awarded €25K in damages after falling through a gap between the train entrance and the platform at Tara Street in Dublin.

The Plaintiff was travelling on a commuter train from Dun Laoghaire and was planning to get off at Connolly Hospital. He dismounted at Tara Street by mistake. When he realised his mistake he tried to re-board the train but he slipped and fell through the gap between the train and the platform.

The Plaintiff suffered a triple fracture to his right shoulder and managed to hall himself back from the gap and re-board the train.

Irish Rail demined liability and claimed that the Plaintiff was distracted and failed to look where he was going. However, Judge Raymond Gore stated that Irish Rail has an “absolute requirement” to warn their customers to mind gaps between trains and platforms when getting on and off the trains.

He initially awarded the Plaintiff €50k in damages but said that the Plaintiff was 50% liable as he should have been more careful and therefore the award was reduced to €25K.