In an attempt to speed up the administration of justice and
become more efficient, the Supreme Court has made a number of
changes to the Civil Procedure Rules in particular Rules 25 and 30
which include amongst others the following:
(a) Within 30 days from the date on which the pleadings are
completed, the Claimant is entitled to issue a summons for
(b) Failing to do so, will result in the Defendant serving a
notice to the Claimant for failure to file such an application,
requiring it to be remedied within 30 days by filing an application
for directions. A further failure to do so after 60 days will
result in the court striking out the action and the faulty party
shall be liable to pay costs.
(c) Every party shall specify in the annex required, the precise
directions that it wants the court to issue within 30 days of the
service of the summons for directions such as for example admitted
facts or disclosure. Failure to do so will result in the
parties being barred from requesting such directions on the day on
which the case is appointed for directions, unless
a good reason is
provided to justify exercising the court's discretionary
Claims under €3000
The court will issue directions to each party to submit their
testimony in writing in the form of a sworn affidavit from each
witness, which will constitute the entire witness testimony and
include the exhibits that they wish to submit. The trial of such
actions will be based solely on the sworn affidavits with no oral
testimony, unless the court:
(i) decides otherwise based on factors such as the need for the
witness to be cross-examined; or
(ii) accepts an application by one of the parties to allow oral
examination in chief or cross-examination, as is the case.
Claims over €3000
The court will issue directions to each party to submit a
written witness list with a summary of the testimony that they will
present. Time limits now apply to chief examination and
cross-examinations of the witnesses of the parties. Nonetheless the
procedure for claims under €3,000 can apply if both parties
agree to it.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Last year we reported that the DIFC had successfully established itself as a so called ‘conduit' jurisdiction for the enforcement of foreign and domestic arbitral awards as well as foreign money judgements.
The Supreme Court in Russell v The Health Service Executive (Unreported, Supreme Court Determination, 1 February 2017)  IESCDET 10 has refused to hear an appeal on the discount rate...
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).