I move amendment No. 18:
In page 13, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) A person appealing under subsection (4) shall first lodge £50,000 with the Court who shall upon the hearing of the appeal decide whether all or part of the said sum shall be awarded to the Panel in addition to any award the Court may make in respect of costs.".
I am prepared to listen to the views of the Minister on this.
The Bill provides that a person may appeal a decision or action of the panel to the court. The relevant provisions are set out in sections 10 and 13. I am satisfied that these provisions strike a fair and equitable balance between the different interests involved. They are also an essential part of the overall checks and balances in the Bill. I would, therefore, be very reluctant to tamper with these provisions. Nonetheless, I gave careful examination to Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment after he suggested it on Second Stage. Apart from the general considerations I have already set out, my specific difficulty is that it could be seen as significantly and unfairly impeding access to justice by a party affected by a decision or action of the panel where that party was financially constrained. Equally, it would not act as a deterrent to tactical litigation, where a party was not financially constrained. The advice I have is that the court would have to be satisfied that there were substantial grounds. They would not permit litigation to be used as a tactic or device to delay the transaction. One could conceivably have one party in circumstances where £50,000 is a serious requirement and in another case where it would be as nothing.
The Minister of State's advice and judgment are that this could have farreaching effects?
We had this examined and had advice from the Attorney General's Office.
