The Minister for Health, Mr Martin, and disability rights campaigner Ms Kathy Sinnott could face substantial legal bills following a High Court decision yesterday rejecting their applications for contributions from the State arising from an unsuccessful challenge to the 2002 General Election result in Cork South Central constituency.
Total costs of the original action, on which judgment was given late last year, were estimated at €500,000 if the various legal teams seek their full costs. The hearing of the challenge had lasted for eight days.
Following yesterday's decision, Ms Sinnott, who was an unsuccessful election candidate in the constituency, said that while she was disappointed with it, she had no idea what her legal bill would be. "We have to do all the figures," she added.
The failed challenge to the election result of Cork South Central was taken on foot of an allegation that Mr Martin - who was a successful candidate there - went beyond his legal spending limit.
The petition was dismissed on December 1st last by Mr Justice Peter Kelly, who gave his detailed reasons for doing so on January 30th last. When the case was before the court in January, it was stated that Mr Martin would not be seeking his costs against Ms Sinnott.
At a hearing earlier this month, applications were made on behalf of a number of individuals, including Mr Martin, Ms Sinnott, and Mr Dan Boyle of the Green Party - a successful candidate - for contributions towards their costs. Mr Boyle participated in only part of the hearing.
On behalf of the Minister for the Environment, it was submitted that he was was not a participant in the proceedings and should not have to make contributions towards other parties' costs.
Giving judgment yesterday on the applications by the various parties for contributions, Mr Justice Kelly said he had concluded that he ought to exercise his discretion by refusing to make an order for costs in favour of the petitioners or other parties claiming costs against the Minister for the Environment.
The judge said the unsuccessful petitioners sought a reverse costs order against that Minister who was a party to the petition only in a technical sense in that he was obliged to be served and was served, but played no part in the proceedings.
No allegation of any wrongdoing was made against the Minister for the Environment or his Department.
The other claimants for costs sought them because they said they had no option but to participate in the proceedings. That was certainly so in the case of Mr Martin.
He (judge) was not convinced that the same necessity obtained in the case of Mr Boyle since no allegation of wrongdoing was made against him.
Mr Justice Kelly said it was clear that all the parties with the exception of Mr Mark Minihane - who lives in the constituency and was also a petitioner - were seeking to protect their own private interests by participating in the proceedings. All stood to gain some possible advantage dependant on the outcome.
Success on the part of Ms Sinnott could have meant the calling of another election where she could run as a candidate. Success on the part of Mr Martin meant he would be confirmed in his position as a duly elected member for the constituency and the dismissal of any wrongdoing.
The single exception was Mr Minihane who was a voter in the constituency. He could of course have brought the petition on his own if he were minded to do so. The petition, however, was a joint one between himself and Ms Sinnott who undoubtedly had a private interest in the outcome. Mr Minihane, apart from lending his name to the petition, played little or no part in it. The whole thrust of the case was on the basis of the wrong allegedly done which adversely affected Ms Sinnott.
In the case of Messrs Martin, Mr Batt O'Keeffe TD and Mr John Dennehy TD, all of whom sought costs, it was correct to state that the only person among them who substantially participated in the hearing was Mr Martin.