Dc practise direction question

dazzacon

Hi all, Does anyone know from when a district court practise directive comes into effect. I presume it will be from when it was issued and if this is the case how do you actually know what date that is! I am referring to DCO3 - adjornments.
Any halp on this would be much appreciated. Thanks!

blueythebear

dazzacon wrote: »

Hi all, Does anyone know from when a district court practise directive comes into effect. I presume it will be from when it was issued and if this is the case how do you actually know what date that is! I am referring to DCO3 - adjornments.
Any halp on this would be much appreciated. Thanks!

It's a practise direction so it comes in when it's published (unless it says otherwise). It's not like it's a Statute with a commencement date. Have to say, the contents of the particular Practise Direction are not controversial and it's worth bearing in mind that it's just a direction and not a hard and fast rule.

dazzacon

Cheers for that, do you have any idea how you find out what day it was published? And what the effect would be, if any, should a party breach it- As in don't give notice that they ate seeking adjornment? I'm guessing normally a judge should just refuse the adjornment but the scenario i am envisioning is the judge allowed it.- surely this wouldnt be grounds to apply for dismissal or JR, would it?

Milk & Honey

dazzacon wrote: »

Cheers for that, do you have any idea how you find out what day it was published? And what the effect would be, if any, should a party breach it- As in don't give notice that they ate seeking adjornment? I'm guessing normally a judge should just refuse the adjornment but the scenario i am envisioning is the judge allowed it.- surely this wouldnt be grounds to apply for dismissal or JR, would it?

It has been around for years. It is routinely ignored. It would be almost impossible to win a JR based on it. It does not have the status of a rule of court. The High Court takes the view that the lower courts control their own procedures and it would very rarely, if ever, regard the granting or refusal of an adjournment as something that should be quashed on judicial review.

blueythebear

dazzacon wrote: »

Cheers for that, do you have any idea how you find out what day it was published? And what the effect would be, if any, should a party breach it- As in don't give notice that they ate seeking adjornment? I'm guessing normally a judge should just refuse the adjornment but the scenario i am envisioning is the judge allowed it.- surely this wouldnt be grounds to apply for dismissal or JR, would it?

As has already been said, it wouldn't be grounds although I would suggest that it might be a ground for appeal if you were somehow prejudiced in your case because of the adjournment.

For example, the other side request an adjournment without notice and a vital witness for you may not be available on the new adjourned date. If you were then refused an adjournment, then one might have a cause for complaint, but it's not likely to happen that way.

dazzacon

Cheers lads!

Milk & Honey

blueythebear wrote: »

As has already been said, it wouldn't be grounds although I would suggest that it might be a ground for appeal if you were somehow prejudiced in your case because of the adjournment.

For example, the other side request an adjournment without notice and a vital witness for you may not be available on the new adjourned date. If you were then refused an adjournment, then one might have a cause for complaint, but it's not likely to happen that way.

An appeal is a de novo hearing and would not be a review of what happened previously. If the case is being adjourned at the request of one party a date to facilitate the other party will always be given.
It is amazing how many guards break their arms on duty the night before a hearing and their colleague has to seek an adjournment the next morning. It is equally amazing how obliging DJs are when such a an incident occurs and how they never seem to wonder if the guards who appear in front of them are not the unluckiest and most accident prone individuals ever born.

blueythebear

Milk & Honey wrote: »

An appeal is a de novo hearing and would not be a review of what happened previously. If the case is being adjourned at the request of one party a date to facilitate the other party will always be given.

I would have thought that in such a hypothetical case, the option of judicial review or appeal would be open to a person ? Either a JR on the procedures point or de novo appeal with the vital witness. Depending on circumstances, one might be the preferable option over the other.

I did say it was unlikely to happen in the way I've described at the same time but some DC judges can be a law unto themselves sometimes.

Milk & Honey wrote: »

It is amazing how many guards break their arms on duty the night before a hearing and their colleague has to seek an adjournment the next morning. It is equally amazing how obliging DJs are when such a an incident occurs and how they never seem to wonder if the guards who appear in front of them are not the unluckiest and most accident prone individuals ever born.

I suppose at least they managed to have the wherewithall to request an adjournment rather than have the judge strike the matter out because the Garda failed to appear!

Milk & Honey

blueythebear wrote: »

I would have thought that in such a hypothetical case, the option of judicial review or appeal would be open to a person ? Either a JR on the procedures point or de novo appeal with the vital witness. Depending on circumstances, one might be the preferable option over the other.

A de novo hearing means the full case is heard from the start in the Circuit Court with all witnesses or even different witnesses.
A JR is to the High Court and it would have to be shown that an appeal to the Circuit Court would not be a satisfactory means of resolving the difficulty which arose in the District Court. It would be almost impossible to succeed in the High Court on the basis of the refusal or grant of an adjournment.