Dublin West TD Mr Liam Lawlor had five legal bills from the Flood tribunal reduced by some €50,000 by a High Court Taxing Master today but still has to pay just over €500,000.
Mr Lawlor will also have further costs to meet after the Taxing Master adjudicates on a further bill - for €150,000 - on June 4th.
The TD - who has spent three separate terms in prison for failing to furnish the tribunal with documentation - was given five bills totalling some €548,000 by the tribunal for the period up to December 19th, 2001.
They cover solicitors’ and barristers’ fees, stenograophy fees and VAT at 21 per cent.
A challenge to some aspects of the bills was taken before High Court Taxing Master Charles Moran. After his decision today, Master Moran granted an application on behalf of Mr Lawlor for a 21-day stay to allow time to consider an appeal.
In his judgment, Master Moran said all the court applications taken by the tribunal were necessary and appropriate steps to compel Mr Lawlor to comply with court orders. On reading the several judgments of the courts, the uniqueness, complexity and seriousness of the issues became abundantly clear.
Mr Lawlor, by his failure to comply with the orders had defied and challenged the fundamental supremacy of the rule of law. It was the duty of the tribunal to act, protect and uphold that.
Master Moran said that court proceedings of this nature, given the status of Mr Lawlor and what appeared to be his attempts to flout and disobey the orders of the tribunal, placed a high and onerous responsibility on the instructing solicitor, Ms Maire Anne Howard.
He said the work done by Ms Howard enabled him understand and appreciate the complexity of the various applications in the case and the difficulties and novelty of the issues involved. He also had an insight into the responsibility of Ms Howard for the costs and the "magnitudinal importance" of the case for the tribunal.
The proceedings attracted high media exposure which was not any reason to claim or mark higher than normal fees, or fees above the going rate for such proceedings. The tribunal was entitled to fair and reasonable remuneration in respect of the disbursements and the solicitor’s general instructions fee.
It was essential that he, as Taxing Master, in his quasi judicial role, acted in a manner that was reasonable and avoided bias or even the appearance of bias. He must therefore ignore and disregard totally all the media coverage and speculation as to Mr Lawlor’s ultimate exposure as to costs.
Mr Lawlor as the paying party was entitled to the concepts of fairness and natural justice afforded to any person who had been ordered to pay costs.
He was not obliged to pay any more costs than that which was deemed fair and reasonable.
Referring to submissions made during the hearing, Master Moran said he had been told that all costs recovered by the instructing solicitor - Ms Howard - would be credited to the Exchequer and that it was the taxpayer who was charged with financing the tribunal’s solicitor.
The State was duty bound to recover all costs awarded to it. It was well established where the State briefed counsel and before any fees were paid, that they were carefully examined and scrutinised and only when so satisfied that they were reasonable in amount were they sanctioned for payment.