The Minister for Finance has opposed applications by banks, financial institutions and other parties for the State to pay "significant sums" to cover costs involved in assisting the Planning tribunal with discovery orders for documents and records.
A series of financial institutions will today seek orders from the tribunal for the State to pay costs incurred in assisting investigations over recent years.
The Bank of Ireland is expected to seek costs of around €500,000 and the overall bill could be far higher.
Counsel for the Minister for Finance, Maurice Collins, yesterday said his client believed the tribunal did not have the power to make orders in relation to such costs as the parties had not received official representation.
He said the Minister understood the tribunal had made a large number of discovery orders but that it was not clear how many were made against people who did not have representation. He said the Minister believed that there were a significant number of people in this category.
Mr Collins said the Minister believed that there were significant sums at stake. He said that the cumulative amount involved could have considerable potential to impact on the public purse.
He said the fundamental issue for adjudication related to whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to make orders on costs in such cases and not how any discretion over the making of such awards should be exercised.
He said the Minister's contention was that under legislation a tribunal could not award costs to persons who did not have representation and who did not appear before it through counsel or a solicitor.
Mr Collins said the legislation did not extend to allowing costs to be awards to persons "who were never represented, never had an interest in the issues under investigation and who had no interest in the ultimate findings of the tribunal."
Mr Collins said the Minister believed that the tribunal could, under legislation, seek direction from the High Court on issues such as the awarding of costs to parties without representation.
Judge Mahon said that it appeared that there were three categories of persons involved in dealing with the tribunal.
The first was persons who had representation, and who could be awarded costs.
The second involved persons who either were refused or did not seek representation and who used either in-house or outside private solicitors to deal with correspondence with the tribunal.
Thirdly there were persons and companies without representation who did use solicitors to deal with the tribunal but who nevertheless incurred expenses.
He said it seemed to be the Minister's contention that there was no legislative provision for the tribunal to award costs to the latter two groups. Judge Mahon said it would be "frightening" for him and the tribunal if all work in future had to be on the basis of dealing with lay people and not with solicitors except where the parties agreed to pay for them themselves.
