There was "an extraordinary difference" between the attitude of Mr Michael Lowry to the tribunal and that of Mr Charles Haughey, according to Mr Lowry's counsel, Mr Donal O'Donnell SC.
Mr Edward Comyn SC, for the public interest, had submitted that Mr Lowry should not be awarded full legal costs. Mr O'Donnell responded that there was "an overwhelming case to be made for Mr Lowry's full co-operation" with the tribunal.
Mr Lowry's costs were being opposed by Mr Comyn in regard to the statement he made to the Dail and not before the tribunal heard by Mr Justice McCracken, said Mr O'Donnell.
Mr Justice McCracken, in his report on the tribunal to the Oireachtas, said he "viewed with some astonishment" Mr Lowry's statement to the Dail in relation to two offshore bank accounts which he had held.
Mr Justice McCracken agreed at yesterday's hearing that he had been referring to the statement Mr Lowry had made to the Dail, and not to his evidence to the tribunal.
Mr O'Donnell told the hearing yesterday that during the tribunal Mr Denis McCullough, counsel for the tribunal, had accepted that Mr Lowry made a full disclosure and co-operated fully with the tribunal.
In opening his submission, Mr O'Donnell said he was applying for Mr Lowry's full legal costs to be paid by the Minister for Finance.
He said he was "somewhat taken aback" by Mr Comyn's submission, which appeared to ask the tribunal to depart from the interpretation of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act 1979.
Mr Comyn had suggested that Mr Lowry would be entitled to his legal costs were it not for his conduct during the tribunal.
It was open to the tribunal to consider, Mr Comyn said, that although Mr Lowry might have given a full account of the matters in the tribunal's remit, his evidence was "of a self-serving nature and did not reflect the true position".
Mr O'Donnell said it was surprising, to say the least, that Mr Comyn had referred to a lack of candour in relation to Mr Lowry's evidence. There had been a clear acknowledgment by the tribunal that Mr Lowry had co-operated fully.
Mr Comyn had also made no distinction between Mr Lowry and Mr Haughey in relation to their conduct before the tribunal, Mr O'Donnell said. It appeared he did not believe either party was entitled to costs.
"There was an extraordinary difference in the attitude of Mr Lowry to this tribunal and that of Mr Haughey, but Mr Comyn's submission is that they should be treated equally and equally badly," he said.
There was an overwhelming case to be made that Mr Lowry had co-operated fully and at all times with the tribunal.
Mr Comyn had "picked out a criticism" from Mr Justice McCracken's report. However, if this were to be applied, it would contradict the ruling by Mr Justice McCarthy regarding legal costs in connection with the beef tribunal, he said.
Mr Lowry had said the most important aspect of the tribunal for him was the allegation that he had given political favours in return for payments. In this respect, he had been "completely vindicated", said Mr O'Donnell.
Mr Lowry should not be put in a position where he had to choose between vindicating his good name and facing possible bankruptcy. Should this be the case, then any party facing a tribunal would have to take a decision as to whether to defend themselves, said Mr O'Donnell.
"It would be utterly unfair, unjust and disproportionate to disentitle him to all his costs," said Mr O'Donnell.