Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 21, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

26.—(1) If in any proceedings before a court it appears to the court that—

(a) costs have been improperly or without any reasonable cause incurred by a solicitor acting for a client who is a party to those proceedings, or

(b) by reason of any undue delay in proceeding under any judgment or order, or of any misconduct or default of that solicitor, any costs properly incurred have nevertheless proved fruitless to the client incurring those costs,

the court may, on its own motion or on the application of the client concerned—

(i) call on the solicitor of the person by whom such costs have been so incurred to show cause why such costs should not be disallowed as between the solicitor and the client and also (if the circumstances of the case require) why the solicitor should not repay to the client any costs which the client may have been ordered to pay any other person, and

(ii) make such order as the justice of the case may require.

(2) An order under subsection (1)—

(a) shall not be made in respect of a solicitor acting in good faith and without negligence,

(b) does not depend upon a finding by the court that the solicitor is guilty of professional misconduct or gross negligence in relation to their duty to the court.

(3) (a) Where a court is considering whether to make an order under subsection (1), the court may at any stage refer the matter—

(i) in the case of the High Court, to a Taxing Master,

(ii) in the case of the Circuit Court, to a county registrar,

for inquiry and report and may also appoint a solicitor to attend and take part in such inquiry.

(b) Notice of an order under paragraph (a) shall be given to the client in such manner as the court may direct.

(4) In this section, "court" includes the Master of the High Court.".

I understand a similar amendment was ruled out of order on Committee Stage. However, the section which caused the problem has been removed. In essence, the amendment is designed to promote consumer protection and prevent the emergence of cosy cartels. The consumer would have greater protection and greater recourse to justice if a case involved simple negligence rather than gross negligence. The section is designed to ensure solicitors who incur costs due to negligence are required to pay those costs by empowering the court to so order. It is a long amendment but this is the essence of what we seek to achieve. Will the Minister accept the amendment?

See this speech in context