How to go to high court

percy212

Hello

Looking for a bit of advice. I opened a case with the ombudsman against a certain insurance company (you know the one) for non payment of hospital expenses. The Ombudsman has decided in favour of the insurance company, but I want to file an appeal in the High Court. Is this something I can do myself or must I be fleeced? I need to do it in the next 5 days or so. Any advice most appreciated.

Victor

Realistically, you do need to engage a solicitor for this.

You're "not in Kansas any more Toto".

valleyoftheunos

You need to speak to a Solicitor about this. The High Court is a serious business and costs are high. Remember that if you loose you'll have to pay the insurance company's legal bills as well.

percy212

Thanks for the feedback. I still want to proceed. If anyone knows of a solicitor with experience in healthcase cases, who might be willing to set a cap on fees, could you please PM me. I feel I have to take a stand against this insurance company's shoddy business practices. Should have studied law!

nuac

Be very careful.

Even if you find a solicitor to take this on, setting a cap on fees, consider the downside.

If you lose you are likely to be orderd to pay the winners' costs - no cap

valleyoftheunos

nuac wrote: »

Be very careful.

Even if you find a solicitor to take this on, setting a cap on fees, consider the downside.

If you lose you are likely to be orderd to pay the winners' costs - no cap

I'd agree with this, firstly I don't know many Solicitors who would be prepared to go to the High Court on a capped fee basis. Litigation can cost a fortune and go on for years and years, especially in the HC.

If you want to go to the HC you need to be prepared to pay for it, that means being ready to cover your costs and the other side's. If you aren't in a position to do that you need to reconsider.

hada

5 Days?

Unlikely. High Court waiting is (bar the exceptions of course) is more like a few years.

Also, may be stating the obvious, but your non-payment of hospital expenses/claim for damages would need to be greater than €38,092.14. Otherwise it's one of the lower courts. (NB: unsure of procedure fo appeal from Ombudsman. Is it even possible to appeal to H Ct?!).

Also, what basis is your appeal? Could be better to go with Judicial Review (which is indeed the High Court....) but that would be only in specified circumstances, and you would be looking at the long wait again.

ResearchWill

hada wrote: »

5 Days?

Unlikely. High Court waiting is (bar the exceptions of course) is more like a few years.

Also, may be stating the obvious, but your non-payment of hospital expenses/claim for damages would need to be greater than €38,092.14. Otherwise it's one of the lower courts. (NB: unsure of procedure fo appeal from Ombudsman. Is it even possible to appeal to H Ct?!).

Also, what basis is your appeal? Could be better to go with Judicial Review (which is indeed the High Court....) but that would be only in specified circumstances, and you would be looking at the long wait again.

The 2004 Act allows 21 days (its covered by Order 84C of RSC) to submit an appeal against a decision of the Ombudsman. The Appeal is only to the High Court. Judicial Review is not an appeal and in most cases should not be used if an Appeal is possible.

The relevant Act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0021/index.html

In relation to costs it is possible to make an application to fix the costs before the case goes on its rare but can be done.

hada

ResearchWill wrote: »

The 2004 Act allows 21 days (its covered by Order 84C of RSC) to submit an appeal against a decision of the Ombudsman. The Appeal is only to the High Court. Judicial Review is not an appeal and in most cases should not be used if an Appeal is possible.

The relevant Act http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0021/index.html

Thanks for clearing that up.

I am well aware of difference in JR v appeal, but the OP may not have been (and it may have been relevant given the particular circumstances).

percy212

Thanks everyone. I am surprised that the next step after an Ombudsman is the High Court which is out of the reach of many citizens as it appears to be prohibitively expensive. Next stop F1 exams!

drkpower

percy212 wrote: »

Thanks everyone. I am surprised that the next step after an Ombudsman is the High Court which is out of the reach of many citizens as it appears to be prohibitively expensive. Next stop F1 exams!

Part of the reason for the introduction of ombudsmen (in many areas) was to provide a low/no cost quasi-judicial independent arbiter with relevant knowledge and experience, and therefore to resolve these disputes without clogging up the courts. Not much point in putting such a system in place and then allowing an appeal to the DC or CC.

In addition, the 'quality' of the judgment you are likely to get from the typical ombudsman will probably beat that of the typical DC judge, and most CC judges.

ResearchWill

drkpower wrote: »

Part of the reason for the introduction of ombudsmen (in many areas) was to provide a low/no cost quasi-judicial independent arbiter with relevant knowledge and experience, and therefore to resolve these disputes without clogging up the courts. Not much point in putting such a system in place and then allowing an appeal to the DC or CC.

In addition, the 'quality' of the judgment you are likely to get from the typical ombudsman will probably beat that of the typical DC judge, and most CC judges.

While the written judgement may be well written, my own personal experiences of these tribunals is they are slow, rules and procedures change from one to the other, they are again in my opinion more prone to JR, the fact that in most cases cost can't be awarded means that respondents have get not benefit from settling.

It's also worth noting that a District Judge will deal with a multiple of case per day, while these ombudsman and tribunals are suffering serious delays.

The FSO costs just over 6 million a year to run which is I believe fully paid for by the Financial companies. To put that in perspective the total cost of running the Courts System is 110 million, income is 50 million plus 16 million in fines real cost to the State for every court case in the country is 44 million.

percy212

I see. I must say the ombudsman's office did a very thorough investigation and I was impressed that such a service was free. They did a great job. I just think their hands are tied in this particular case because of clauses in the insurance contract that seem preposterous to me. Perhaps new legislation is required to prevent other citizens finding themselves in similar predicaments. Next stop - TD's Office.

ResearchWill

percy212 wrote: »

I see. I must say the ombudsman's office did a very thorough investigation and I was impressed that such a service was free. They did a great job. I just think their hands are tied in this particular case because of clauses in the insurance contract that seem preposterous to me. Perhaps new legislation is required to prevent other citizens finding themselves in similar predicaments. Next stop - TD's Office.

It's not free, you pay for it trough your insurance policy, to have such a judicial body that can't strike down terms of a contract which even a DJ can do is the exact problem. Now rather than some DJ fixing the issue and granting you costs at low risk, you now need to go to the High Court at real risk.

percy212

ResearchWill wrote: »

It's not free, you pay for it trough your insurance policy, to have such a judicial body that can't strike down terms of a contract which even a DJ can do is the exact problem. Now rather than some DJ fixing the issue and granting you costs at low risk, you now need to go to the High Court at real risk.

Thanks ResearchWill. That's very interesting. I should have sued instead of going the Ombudsman route it seems. Next time.

ResearchWill

percy212 wrote: »

Thanks ResearchWill. That's very interesting. I should have sued instead of going the Ombudsman route it seems. Next time.

That's the problem, if I remember correctly as a consumer you have to go to the ombudsman I may be wrong but I think that's the way.

We as people allowed the setting up of various "lawyer free tribunals" EAT PIAB financial services ombudsman PRTB etc, where the plaintiff can not get their costs, but neither does the business have to pay when they are wrong, what's the chances of a business settling when there is no risk.

BTW when speaking to your TD thank him for making it easy for you bank, insurance company, employer etc to screw you with no risk.

percy212

ResearchWill said: "neither does the business have to pay when they are wrong"

Yikes. That doesn't sound right. I want to say a word that I have come to hate. It rhymes with Rango

I will most definitely take this up with my TD and anyone else who will listen. I don't like to lose. Unfortunately I can't handle the financial risk of a High Court case.

Thanks to everyone again for their input.

ResearchWill

percy212 wrote: »

ResearchWill said: "neither does the business have to pay when they are wrong"

Yikes. That doesn't sound right. I want to say a word that I have come to hate. It rhymes with Rango

I will most definitely take this up with my TD and anyone else who will listen. I don't like to lose. Unfortunately I can't handle the financial risk of a High Court case.

Thanks to everyone again for their input.

While I am a lawyer and have a vested interest, never the less when us lawyers said these quangos are bad for the average joe, we had the you will make money from it thrown at us. Now in so many areas we have been all but removed from these proceedings, but the insurance company still have lawyers, the bank the same your employer the same, yes they removed the lawyers from the weakest side of the case.

dermot_sheehan

percy212 wrote: »

Thanks everyone. I am surprised that the next step after an Ombudsman is the High Court which is out of the reach of many citizens as it appears to be prohibitively expensive. Next stop F1 exams!

I agree it is crazy.

Furthermore the statute terms it "an appeal", which some High Court judges have interpreted as having some deference to the decision of the specialized decision maker (the FSO) so that you have to show that they reached their decision incorrectly or erred. Other judges have interpreted "an appeal" as being a complete appeal that allows the High Court judge to reach his or her own decision on the merits with no defference to the decision at first instance.

This issue of how broad a statutory appeal is needs to be clarified by the Supreme Court.

Another crazy factor is not only do you need to pay the costs of the financial service provider if you lose, but also the costs of the FSO (who are represented by lawyers). It's nuts that an appeal should have representation for the tribunal that is being appealed (it's not like a Circuit Court judge is represented during an appeal from the Circuit Court to the High Court).

Furthermore as you note, an appeal regardless of value goes to the High Court. A rational appeal system would have appeals for cases worth less than €6k going to the District Court and €38k to the Circuit Court.

percy212

Good info Dermot. Given that, I can't imagine anyone appealing an Ombudsman decision. The consumer would have a host of adversaries vying against them in the High Court.

Kosseegan

percy212 wrote: »

Good info Dermot. Given that, I can't imagine anyone appealing an Ombudsman decision. The consumer would have a host of adversaries vying against them in the High Court.

The Ombudsman is often appealed.

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/158A241A8C80485980257A480052A267?Open

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/607E1043F49B88E380257995004E2B23?Open

http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/3CC50ED7FFCB5B548025798200352F65?Open


http://www.courts.ie/__80256F2B00356A6B.nsf/0/696BE48EC9C99A5480257887004A687A?Open

percy212

Strange. So would these plaintiffs have risked tens of thousands of euros to take their case to the high court? Seem very risky for the average Josephine.

The case vs. Quinn is of particular interest. The sums seem small for the high court.

Am I missing something? Is there a way for me to get there without risking financial ruin (close enough as it is...!)