The High Court Taxing Master yesterday cut by almost £1 million a bill presented by the legal team which acted at the beef tribunal for the former Tanaiste and Labour Party leader, Mr Dick Spring TD, and the former Labour MEP Mr Barry Desmond.
Mr James Flynn said the work done by Mr Donal Spring, a brother of Dick Spring, who acted as solicitor for the two politicians and who sought fees of £785,000, was "lilliputian" compared with preparatory work encountered by others for the tribunal.
He sanctioned with reluctance a fee of £320,000 for Mr Donal Spring. Mr Flynn said he "cannot agree" with that figure but was prepared to sanction it as the State was prepared to pay it.
The legal team acting for the former Labour leader and Mr Desmond had submitted a total bill for legal fees, excluding VAT, of about £1.52 million, but has been offered about £547,000.
Mr Donal Spring had billed the Minister for Finance for £785,000, but the Taxing Master awarded him £320,000, the sum offered by the State during the hearing of costs issue before the Taxing Master last April.
Mr Justice McCracken, who was senior counsel to the two politicians during the tribunal hearing, submitted a bill for £328,650 and has been allowed a total of £115,500. The junior counsel, Mr Gerard Durcan, had billed the Minister for £315,700 and has been allowed £111,500.
Mr Flynn said a second junior counsel, Mr Finbar O'Malley, who submitted a bill for £93,800, could not be remunerated as the order for costs allowed for only two counsel.
In rejecting Mr Donal Spring's bill for professional fees, the Taxing Master said: "Mr Spring, in assessing his remuneration, failed to appreciate the apparent differences which faced other lawyers in this matter, and consequently his assessment is somewhat overstated."
In his 54-page ruling, Mr Flynn said the function of the beef tribunal was to carry out a simple fact-finding operation into the truth or otherwise of allegations regarding illegal activities, fraud and malpractice in the beef industry. As it unfolded, it was evident that it was far from simple.
Dick Spring had given evidence to the tribunal for one day in December 1992. During the course of the costs hearing, the legal cost accountant for the Minister, Mr Peter Fitzpatrick, had claimed that the Spring/Desmond legal team did not have to deal with experts and the documentation came from the tribunal.
Mr Flynn said this, along with the fact that no wrong-doings were alleged against either Mr Spring or Mr Desmond, reduced the amount of work considerably.
Mr Donal Spring did not have to expend time interviewing witnesses, travelling or researching. Effectively, the solicitors for Mr Spring and Mr Desmond were not involved with the matter from morning to night virtually throughout the tribunal's entire life, as were some of the other participants.
It was rather astonishing to discover that very little of the discourses that took place between counsel and the solicitor throughout the tribunal's life was reduced to written format, he said. He added: "The worst ink is better than the best memory".
He said: "The breakfast meetings to some extent were . . . more of a tete-a-tete than what one would consider as normal consultations". The material submitted in support of the Spring/Desmond legal costs was, in the main, that issued by the tribunal itself.
He was aware that Mr Fitzpatrick, for the Minister, had suggested a fee of £320,000 to be fair and reasonable for Mr Spring's fees. "I cannot agree with this figure but with reluctance I am prepared to sanction this amount as the State are prepared to pay this sum".