Wife of Ray Burke seeks discovery costs

Former minister Ray Burke has failed in a new application to have the State pay costs incurred by him in dealing with the planning tribunal.

The tribunal, meanwhile, also heard an application yesterday on behalf of Anne Burke, the wife of the former minister, for her costs in relation to discovery orders made in the course of the investigation into her husband's affairs.

Tribunal chairman Judge Alan Mahon will rule on Ms Burke's application, which is believed to be for around €24,000, by the end of the month.

John Fox, for Ms Burke, contended that the Minister for Finance had conceded that he would pay the costs associated with a party of limited resources seeking legal advice in relation to the swearing of affidavits of discovery.

He said Ms Burke had not formally sought representation before the tribunal. He said this was because "at all times it was implicit that she was represented through her association with her husband".

He said that Ray Burke's legal team "were at all times conducting affairs and addressing the tribunal in relation to anything to do with the Burke family, including his children".

Mr Fox said it would be inequitable and unfair not to grant Ms Burke her costs.

He said that at all times she had been represented by a solicitor and counsel and that over a three to four year period the tribunal had corresponded with her through her solicitors.

Meanwhile, in a surprise move yesterday on behalf of Ray Burke, his counsel John Fox sought what he termed a "supplemental order" from Judge Mahon seeking costs associated with discovery.

Last September the tribunal rejected an application by Burke for costs of €10 million.

Yesterday, Mr Fox contended that the Minister for Finance had conceded in an earlier submission to the tribunal that he was prepared to pay costs associated with discovery for parties who were legally represented.

He said that Burke had expected that an order to meet such expenses would have been granted at the time of his overall application for costs as this issue had been already conceded by the Minister.

Judge Mahon said that any concession that may have appeared to have been made by the State in relation to costs would be subject, first of all, to the discretion of the tribunal as to whether it was appropriate that they should be awarded and, more particularly, to the co-operation of the individual concerned.

"I think that the order made, at least the ruling in relation to Mr Burke's costs would not be open to review in relation to discovery or any other matter," he said.

Judge Mahon said Mr Fox was suggesting that the original order on Burke's costs be reviewed and that a new one be made directing that expenses relating to discovery be paid.

Judge Mahon said he was refusing to make such an order.

In his ruling last September rejecting Burke's application for €10 million in costs, Judge Mahon said the former minister was a crucial witness who had set out to deliberately mislead the tribunal in the hope and expectation that the inquiry would prove inconclusive or would produce erroneous findings.

The tribunal also yesterday heard applications from a number of banks and financial institutions, which were not officially represented before the tribunal, for costs associated with facilitating discovery orders.

The Minister for Finance is opposing such awards.