Court to decide by end of June on resumption of army deafness cases

The High Court in Dublin is expected to decide towards the end of this month whether to resume hearing Army deafness cases or…

The High Court in Dublin is expected to decide towards the end of this month whether to resume hearing Army deafness cases or to allow out-of-court discussions aimed at producing speedier settlements of the actions to continue.

In mid-April, some 300 cases on the Dublin High Court list were adjourned in the hope that settlements could be negotiated outside the courts.

Thousands of Army deafness actions are outstanding, although large numbers have been dealt with by the courts over the past couple of years.

Yesterday the High Court was told that, since the April adjournment, settlements had been agreed in 185 actions while offers had been made in 500 cases. Counsel for the Minister for Defence, Mr Sean Ryan SC, applied for a further adjournment of the cases on the Dublin list until October.

READ MORE

He said there was a bargaining process in being which was now "up and running." The State side could not no anything in a case until it received a plaintiff's audiogram. Every time an audiogram was received, they had been "pretty well responded to." The State had moved with all rapidity.

Mr Justice Johnson said that previously the court had been listing the cases at a rate of 10 a day for four days a week. That would have meant that, during the six weeks of the present law term, 240 cases would have been listed.

Several counsel representing solicitors handling actions for many plaintiff soldiers strenuously objected to an adjournment. They complained that the clients' solicitors had not been furnished with audiograms by the State in some cases.

Mr Ryan said the State did not know what cases it could settle until it had the plaintiffs' audiograms.

Mr Justice Johnson said he would adjourn the list until the first day of the next law term at the end of the month.

He said he wanted affidavits for the parties setting out the position, and he wanted those who swore those affidavits to be in court so they could be cross-examined. He would then consider whether the cases could go ahead in the next term.