Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I am opposed to the amendment. The additional costs issue would be almost impossible to calculate. This is intended to be a significant incentive to legal advisers to litigants to get on with the job and to put them at risk if they do not send the letter of claim. How could one say extra costs were incurred by the letter arriving in month four rather than month three? One would need to be a philosopher or mathematician to work out the additional burden on the defendant arising from that month's delay. If one wants to recover costs, one has to get on with the job, concentrate on the issue and notify potential defendants. Section 7(2)(a) and (b) are alternatives. Either one makes no order as to costs or makes a deduction from the costs. Most judges would choose the latter. In a brazen case where the defendant has been seriously damaged and there was no excuse for leaving the defendant un-notified, then a person acting for the plaintiff should be at risk of being seriously penalised. This will concentrate the mind of the plaintiff's solicitor wonderfully.