The lawyers' meters have been running for years at the planning tribunal - and no-one shouted stop, writes Paul Cullen
Financial commentators who have predicted an upsurge in public spending when SSIAs mature next year should brace themselves for an altogether different outpouring of monetary joy.
But unlike the saving scheme, for which anyone with a bit of cash could apply, this windfall is only available to members of the legal profession.
Yesterday's announcement by Judge Alan Mahon that he intends to award legal costs to most witnesses before the planning tribunal, opens the floodgates for claims amounting to tens of millions of euro from witnesses before the inquiry.
Judge Mahon has decided that if you co-operated with the tribunal, and if no adverse findings were made against you in its reports, then you will get your costs "save in exceptional [ and unspecified] circumstances".
Only the corrupt few - Ray Burke, Brennan and McGowan, the Baileys - are being denied their costs, and even here, the chairman's decision may be challenged in the courts.
By next year, the Taxing Master will be adjudicating on the telephone-number estimates submitted by many legal teams and the tribunal gravy train will finally have pulled into the station. Once again, the Exchequer will have to foot the bill for this country's extraordinary affection for litigation and expensive legal representation.
To be fair to Judge Mahon, the damage was done by the time he took over as chairman from Mr Justice Feargus Flood in 2003. A tribunal originally envisaged to last three months had been in existence for six years by then, and had travelled down many a side-track and false trail.
Now we can see that the lawyers kept the meter running during all those delays and digressions of the early days. The pieces of paper we in the press bench saw some lawyers filling in during quiet days at the tribunal were not crosswords but time sheets.
Mr Justice Flood's failure to keep control on the tribunal led to a rapid escalation of hearing days and consequently costs - not that anyone would be vulgar enough to actually say how high these were. Like the worst cost overruns seen in our economy, no-one knew the final bill and no-one cared or dared to ask.
And so it went on - more witnesses, more modules, more tribunals, with all involved inevitably set to demand their pound of flesh from the Exchequer at some future date. No-one shouted stop, and the only figures the press could point to were the €2,500 a day being earned by the senior lawyers on the tribunal staff.
Aside from James Gogarty, none of the 10 witnesses who were awarded costs yesterday added much to the tribunal's sum of knowledge. This isn't their fault - they shouldn't have been called as witnesses, or they should have appeared in a non-adversarial situation without lawyers.
Dermot Ahern had nothing to do with the payments to Ray Burke until he was haplessly sent to investigate them by Bertie Ahern. His cross-examination by lawyers for Joseph Murphy was as entertaining as it was devastating for the Minister, but it led nowhere. Mr Ahern, who was represented by his solicitor brother, Tim Ahern, and counsel, is seeking €270,000 in costs.
Marcus Sweeney, one of Mr Murphy's former executives, spent one morning in the witness box, where he told us an alleged company "slush-fund" was actually money to pay a housekeeper. Mr Sweeney's bill is €348,000, including the costs of travelling to Ireland from the US and South America.
Mr Justice Flood's reports have been widely praised, but their focus is narrow and they have little to say about the extraneous issues raised during the evidence. His abrupt departure meant that the person best qualified to adjudicate on costs was no longer in situ. Judge Mahon has had to rely on the transcripts to decide the matter, an entirely unsatisfactory situation. It took more than Ray Burke and a few rogue builders to delay the tribunal for years, and to this observer at least, full co-operation was long a commodity in short supply in Dublin Castle.
With any refusal likely to be challenged, the chairman knew that the easiest way to short-circuit this process was to say yes to all those who played ball with the tribunal. This may explain his decision to give costs to RTÉ and the Independent Radio and Television Commission (IRTC), when the Whiddy and Stardust tribunals opted not to pay the costs of public bodies.
No-one is disputing a person's right to legal representation, even the best representation. Serious issues, and people's reputations, were at stake, even if much of the fuss now seems to have been unnecessary. However, the lack of external oversight in the award of costs is a concern, particularly when the money is coming from the public purse.
The decision to award costs is made by the chairman, who is a former senior counsel, and the actual amount awarded is set by the Taxing Master, who is also a lawyer. There is no requirement for an initial estimate of costs, no meaningful involvement by the Department of Finance and representation is an open-ended matter that can last as long as the tribunal lasts.
It is true that lawyers representing witnesses at the tribunal have had to wait many years for their big payday, yet this fact is in itself an indictment of the tribunal system. Only the richest of clients can afford to fund their legal teams on an ongoing basis, unless the lawyers are prepared to postpone the date of payment. And if lawyers are prepared to wait seven years to be paid, what does this say about their financial well-being?