Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 are related and will be taken together.
SECTION 33.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 45, subsection (4) (b), line 44, to delete "21 days" and substitute "three months".
If the 21 day period were to operate, people would almost have to sit by their fireside with a pile of newspapers to notice things in time. It certainly does not give people much of a chance to be aware of what is happening. Three months would be more reasonable and enable those who want to take a case to do so. It also gives the court sufficient time in which to act without delaying matters for too long; 21 days is too short, three months is reasonable.
I also believe that three weeks is very short and that three months would be more in the client's favour.
I will go briefly through the provisions of the section. There are a number of provisions relating to notice built into it. Under subsection (1) the High Court may only authorise the society to sell a practice after due notice has been given to such persons as the court thinks fit and, if necessary, after such persons have been heard by the court.
The next step in the process is covered by subsection (2) where the society applies to the court for directions as to how the proceeds of the sale of the practice are to be applied. The society is required to give at least ten days' notice of an application to the High Court in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the solicitor practised. Under subsection (3) the court may order that the proceeds of sale be held in trust by the society and this is basically what we are dealing with in the amendment. If the court so orders the society must publish this fact and at this point any claimants who have not come to notice under the earlier provision I have referred to furnish their claims to the society.
The amendment is drafted fairly widely. I do not want to put the Law Society in a situation where one person can say they were given two months' notice while somebody else was given five months' notice and is refusing four months notice in this case. I am imposing a definite time limit in the interest of certainty. The best way around this may be to allow the court to extend the period if necessary. I will undertake to introduce an amendment on Report Stage to achieve that rather than accepting three months and allowing the society to extend that period at its discretion. I will leave it at 21 days for the moment and introduce an amendment on Report Stage to give the court discretion to increase the period.
The court is used to dealing with efficiency. They have clerks and others who carry out is business. The last thing the ordinary person who is busy either looking after lambs or trying to sow corn in water logged fields wants is to hang around waiting. I accept the Minister's willingness to change the section but if the courts are only given the power to extend the period they may not do so. All they have to do is pick up the telephone, someone will dance attendance on them and within an hour they will have solved most problems.
The courts may say that 21 days is sufficient and they might even regard it as delaying proceedings. I ask the Minister to ensure they will extend it rather than giving them the discretion to do so.
I propose to give them the power to extend the period and I am sure they will act reasonably.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 94 not moved.
Section 33 agreed to.
Sections 34 and 35 agreed to.