Mahon tribunal: The chairman of the planning tribunal has awarded €2.26 million in legal costs to 68 individuals and companies, though they never applied for legal representation at the inquiry.
As Judge Alan Mahon's decision marks the first time a tribunal has awarded costs in such circumstances, it is likely to set a precedent for other inquiries. Until now, tribunals have awarded costs only in cases where a witness had been granted legal representation.
The ruling covers the first five years of the planning tribunal's work only, so further costs will be incurred for the ongoing work of the inquiry. Lawyers for the Minister for Finance, who pays the tribunal's bills, had argued that parties without legal representation should be refused costs.
However, Judge Mahon argued that his decision would end up saving money.
A tribunal dealing with individuals directly would incur "very significant costs" and delays, he claimed.
Among those awarded their costs yesterday were the wives of George Redmond and Ray Burke, whose own applications were refused because of their failure to co-operate with the inquiry. Anne Burke is seeking €24,200 in costs, while the amount sought by Maureen Redmond is undisclosed.
Other parties awarded costs yesterday included the Bank of Ireland and related companies (€538,165), AIB and related companies (€462,800) and National Irish Bank (€413,820).
Judge Mahon said nine parties who had dealt directly with the tribunal but had not engaged lawyers were not eligible for the €42,000 in costs they had applied for. However, he called on the Minister to make an ex-gratia payment to cover their expenses.
He also awarded relevant costs to Gerard Downes, a former JMSE executive whose lawyers have submitted a bill for almost €1 million. All awards are subject to scrutiny by the Taxing Master.
The chairman commended all the parties for their co-operation with the tribunal.
The original legislation on tribunals, which dates from 1921, was "silent" on the issue of costs, he pointed out, while amending legislation in 1979 made express provision for their award to persons "appearing before the tribunal by solicitor or counsel".
At issue was the interpretation of this phrase, with Judge Mahon saying it was reasonable to conclude that the legislature intended that a wider category of parties should be considered eligible for costs over and above those granted representation.
"I believe it reasonable to conclude that if the intention of the tribunal was to restrict the award of costs to those parties who had been granted representation, then such intention would have been clearly expressed."
Judge Mahon said it was often "justified, advisable and beneficial" for parties to deal with the tribunal through a solicitor, as this form of contact resulted in a "more efficient and structured" exchange of information.
The planning tribunal, more than any previous inquiry, had seen a "considerable interaction" with a variety of parties who were never envisaged as having a role in public hearings.
"Many of the parties within this category of person played as important and vital a role in the tribunal's work in its efforts to determine the substantive issues as that played by witnesses who actually gave evidence in public and were formally granted representation."
In following money trails and determining land ownership, the tribunal was heavily dependent on documentation and the willing co-operation of financial institutions, lawyers, accountants, stockbrokers and auctioneers, the chairman said.
