Letter: High Court needs more than one Master
Reading time: 4 minutes
Dear Editor,
The State, the Judiciary and the legal professions have been most fortunate in having benefitted from the wisdom and professionalism, as well as the courteous and considerate manner, of the past and current incumbents of the Master’s Court.
I have the privilege of practice that commenced with Master Hill SC and his successors, that including the present incumbent, being Deputy Master Glennon.
In his retirement speech, Master Hill referred to the fact that this is where many a young barrister has “cut their teeth”. I, for one, have never forgotten the lessons that I learned from appearing before Master Hill.
I can only assume like those of my colleagues who practice there, I have encountered the same treatment with the Deputy Master.
Like with the Deputy Master, Master Hill and Master Honohan SC, the legal professions have had the professional assistance of the present Master’s Registrar, Mr John Whelan, and of past registrars that I remember back to Ms Grainne O’Loughlin.
On arrival at the court on Tuesday the 10th, one could see that the legal diary was indeed correct and 211 cases were so listed for the Court.
This appears to have arisen out of the Court being adjourned from the 24th to 27th of February and from the 3rd to the 6th, when it appears that the Deputy Master was indisposed.
The Court was completely full, with barely room to stand. There was a large group composed of counsel, solicitor and litigants in the corridor outside the court as well on the landing beside the stairs.
When Master Hill was absent, Ms Betty McGuigan, then of the Central Office, sat as Deputy Master. In those circumstances, the court continued to sit.
Section 28 of the Court Officers Act 1926 provides for the appointment of a Deputy Master:
“so nominated shall, during every temporary absence and every temporary incapacity through illness of such principal officer and every occasion on which the office of such principal officer is vacant occurring while such nomination remains unrevoked, have and exercise the powers and authorities and perform and fulfil the duties and functions for the time being vested by law in such principal officer”
The importance of the role of the Master of the High Court cannot be underestimated.
Section 5 of the Court Officers Act 1926 provides that the Central Office shall be under the management of the Master of the High Court.
Section 5 of the Court Officers Act 1926 provides that the Master of the High Court is including but not limited to pursuant to section 5 of the Court Officers Act 1926 is responsible for the:
“general superintendence and control of such of the offices established by this Part of this Act as are attached to the High Court but shall in the exercise of such superintendence and control be subject to the general direction of the Minister in regard to all matters of general administration and to the directions of the President of the High Court in regard to all matters relating to the conduct of that part of the business of the High Court which is for the time being required by law to be transacted by or before one or more of the Judges of that Court”.
Alas, it appears that the government is unable to utilise section 28 of the Court Officers Act 1926 to appoint a further Deputy Master so as to ensure that the Master’s Court can continue to sit in the absence of Deputy Master Glennon.
Thus, the case for the appointment of a Master of the High Court appears to me, to become more compelling; especially as Master Honohan was deemed to have retired on reaching his 70th birthday in compliance with section 3(6) of the Court Officers Act 1926 and last sat in April 2022.
Given the volume of work that is being transacted in the Master’s Court, there is a compelling case for legislation to permit the appointment of more than one Master of the High Court.
J. T. R. McCoy BL
Share this article:
Subscribe to our newsletter to not miss articles like this one:
SUBSCRIBE
