Would Class Actions/Group Litigation be the answer to redress the balance of power

gnf_ireland

Registered User
Messages
1,441
The more I read about the Irish system and the massive ‘David v Goliath’ battles by individuals trying to get their legal dues, the more I think there needs to be a means for the average Joe/Jane to fight the ‘corporate institutions’ on a more even playing pitch.

I am wondering if Class Action/Group Litigation lawsuits are the answer? Why are they not permitted in Ireland ? Does anyone know the history ? Are they relevant in today’s global world ?

I am not just talking about the banks and the tracker scandal, but also PPI by card providers, VW emissions etc.

Why should institutions of the state such as Central Banks be tasked with legal matters? Surely this function belongs to the courts ?

Would this help or make things worse ? Would it help resolve the issue with redress that the Central Bank say they have no authority over? Would it push the banks to address the issues raised rather than dismiss them ?

Is it the best way to solve future issues like this and let the courts decide who is in the wrong ?

Answers on a postcard please ?
 
Looks like this is being mooted around at the moment in any event based on the article in the indepdent this morning

https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...laws-allowing-for-class-actions-36259491.html

"As far back as 2003, the Law Reform Commission recommended the introduction of a class action under the jurisdiction of the High Court and Circuit Court."


"Fianna Fáil's finance spokesman Michael McGrath said the dead end faced by people caught up in the tracker mortgage scandal showed the need for group litigation.

"The motivation behind raising that issue is that if a customer is not satisfied with the outcome of their case with the bank, the next step they can take is the Financial Ombudsman.

"If again they are still not satisfied that their case has not been handled properly, then the only recourse that they have is through the courts," he said.

"We all know that taking a High Court case is very expensive. It can be in excess of €100,000 in many cases."

Mr McGrath said his party was examining the possibility of bringing forward legislation to allow for class actions.

"It would be a sea change in terms of our legal system. There are pros and cons but we believe it's something that has to be examined and in principle we're in favour of moving in that direction," he said.

The CEO of the Free Legal Advice Centre (Flac), Eilis Barry, told the Irish Independent it would support the move. She said it would "increase access to justice" for people but would have to be backed up with funding for legal aid supports."
 
I am not just talking about the banks and the tracker scandal, but also PPI by card providers, VW emissions etc.
Why should institutions of the state such as Central Banks be tasked with legal matters? Surely this function belongs to the courts ?
Would this help or make things worse ? Would it help resolve the issue with redress that the Central Bank say they have no authority over? Would it push the banks to address the issues raised rather than dismiss them ?
Is it the best way to solve future issues like this and let the courts decide who is in the wrong ?

Either we should have class actions and allow citizens to stand together to fight their own battles; or we should have a properly funded state Ombudsman for citizens with the resources to pursue these cases on their behalf. That is different to giving Ombudsman powers over the banks etc directly.
 
Either we should have class actions and allow citizens to stand together to fight their own battles; or we should have a properly funded state Ombudsman for citizens with the resources to pursue these cases on their behalf.

I am sure many people who have taken cases via the Ombudsman have been frustrated as a result, with the general feeling that they side too much with the banks. Any Ombudsman needs to have the power to compel financial institutions to work with them, and needs to be able to direct reaonable redress and compensation to the individuals.

The other big issue with the Ombudsman is the details and agreements from the cases are not made public, and therefore cannot be used by other people making claims. Summary judgements need to be made available for review, except maybe in very specific cases. The financial institutions have access to this information if they were involved in the case - whereas the individuals do not, again swaying the balance of power to the financial institutions

Personally, I think the Ombudsman does a great job in one off individual scenarios, but in something as big as the tracker issue they are out of their depth and needs to be driven via the courts. How many people had their tracker claims rejected by the Ombudsman only for it to be back in scope again!

I would like both options to be available - so people have the choice to go via either route depending on the number of customers potentially impacted.
 
Exactly gnf. Very well put. The Ombudsman let a lot of people down with his 'tracker' related decisions between 2010 - 2015. Bill Prasifka made grave errors in his judgment which sided with bank in 75% of cases. He without doubt compounded the misery and suffering of many. (Where is he now? Let him come out and answer for his actions.) Ger Deering is now trying to rebuild some faith again in the FSO but I don't believe that's possible. A new system needs to be put in place which isn't funded by the banks.
 
Back
Top