In the High Court, a judge has labelled a woman’s 30-year legal battle against her brother over a small familial farm in Co Sligo as the “peak of judicial system misuse” he’s ever encountered. The feud pertained to a relatively minor legacy under a parent’s testament – a type of disagreement that could occur in any family across Ireland, according to Mr Justice Michael Twomey.
Elizabeth Shannon was able to instigate a series of “vexatious” allegations against brother John in the High Court, where the expenses are typically only manageable for the vastly wealthy. This permitted her to inflict him with a financial burden 100 times higher than if she was confined to the District Court, and tenfold what it would have been in the Circuit Court.
Despite John successfully defending himself against his sister’s “numerous, misguided and abusive” allegations, there is no indication that he ever managed to recuperate his substantial legal expenses from her.
The reality of Elizabeth representing herself led to even further abuse of the system, as she could cause him to expend tens of thousands each lawsuit, while spending insignificantly herself.
These remarks from the judge came as he validated John Shannon’s entitlement to a 64-acre farm, including a house at Leaffoney, Kilglass, bestowed unto him by their deceased mother in 1994. Twin sisters Elizabeth and Gwendoline contested the decree, having not vacated the familial residence and asserting their ownership.
Despite countervailing rulings against Elizabeth Shannon in her relentless, decades-long litigation, she claims entitlement to the estate at the most recent hearing. Her to take her baseless claim to court only happened because John had felt obliged to initiate proceedings due to the sisters’ refusal to leave the property. They returned there immediately following their eviction in 2006, leading to John’s fears of them suggesting squatting rights.
Judges in Ireland have noted that Ms Shannon’s defence against her brother’s case lacked substantial grounds, and endorsed the possession order. Over several decades, legislation in Ireland has caused an alarming decrease in the number of accessible courts, with a 359% decrease in the ratio of District to High Court judges. The present tally stands at 51 High Court judges, which per capita, is five times higher than in England and Wales. Major cities like London host 700% more Circuit Courts compared to High Courts.
While there was no implication of an excess in High Court judges considering the volume of cases trialled, it was emphasised that the dense concentration of cases in the High Court due to these shifts does not improve the system for the litigants. It was pointed out that these changes make it likely for individuals such as Mr. Shannon to have low-stake cases heard in the High Court, which incurs disproportionate costs to the dispute’s value. Broadly speaking, a District Court hearing could cost at least €500, with a Circuit Court hearing at €5,000 or higher and a High Court hearing could cost €50,000 or more.
The judge noted that it is the role of the Oireachtas, and not the judicial or legal professionals, to decide on the guidelines for determining legal costs that currently set High Court fees at levels only affordable to the wealthy. Any decrease in legal charges would improve the system for the litigants but might not sit well with the legal fraternity.
Ireland is amongst the costliest jurisdictions globally for civil lawsuits and without successful reforms in legal costs, the situation will persist unchanged. The Oireachtas has been urged to consider an alternate solution: to restore the earlier number of accessible courts and limit High Court hearings to substantial disputes or those whose value matches the expected legal expenses.
He reiterated the fact that the role of the courts is to highlight challenges within the system to improve it for the litigant, but noted the lack of a lobby group to draw attention to the consequences individuals, like Mr Shannon, face as a result of these changes.
He voiced that the burden of legal fees is a concern for all citizens, especially those earning a median income. Few individuals would risk falling into monetary catastrophe through a high court-ordered legal cost, just to seek justice, he noted.