The Taxing Master of the High Court has cut by almost 70 per cent the fees sought by four of the barristers who represented the Irish Haemophilia Society and victims at the Lindsay tribunal inquiry into the contamination of people with HIV and hepatitis C from infected blood products.
Master James Flynn yesterday cut a total of more than €5 million off a bill of €17 million submitted on behalf of the solicitors and counsel who represented the society. He remarked that the present tribunal system had been and would continue to be a very heavy drain on the Exchequer.
There must be a better system, he said, adding that no one had even explored the possibility of utilising existing governmental systems to conduct an inquiry or fact-finding mission.
"Tribunals must be seen to be justified and in order to meet this essential criterion they must be efficient, effective and speedy," he said.
Among the cost-cutting measures he suggested was a tendering process for barristers and solicitors, and a rank of "senior junior" counsel instead of senior counsel.
The State, which had agreed to pay the costs of the IHS and victims, challenged the €17 million bill submitted by Malcolmson Law, the solicitors' firm which had represented 200 individuals at the Lindsay tribunal. That inquiry ran for a total of 196 days during a 29-month period. The Malcolmson Law bill was believed to be the largest single one to come from a solicitors' firm before a taxing master.
Three senior and two junior counsel submitted a total bill for €5,547,059, excluding VAT. Master Flynn yesterday allowed a total of €1,596,227, a figure which included additional fees allowed to an extra senior counsel and junior barrister.
Malcolmson Law had sought an instruction fee of €6,570,000, which was cut to €5,338,500. The master was told that five solicitors worked at various stages on the preparation of the victims' cases, and that the nature of the evidence and technical processes were inordinately complex.
He was conscious that the bulk of the work done was performed by a solicitor for the firm, Mr Raymond Bradley, Master Flynn said. This was primarily a case driven and directed by the solicitor and it lessened to a greater degree the amount of work of the individual counsel, and consequently this impacted on the fees allowable.
Master Flynn said he was worried about fees sought for non-sitting days. He saw no evidence of what work was done by counsel, how much time was spent and whether or not such work was germane to the case.
His concern was heightened by the fact that there were other bills of costs in respect of other matters which were before the Taxing Masters' office, some of which were awaiting taxation.
It appeared that Mr Martin Hayden SC was claiming fees in respect of those bills. "I do not say there is anything wrong about that but I do say that on certain days upon which he has raised a fee in the instant matter, he has also raised a fee in respect of the matters foreign to this taxation. I cannot allow those fees in this tribunal of inquiry." Non-sitting days were allowable for the time exclusively devoted to work directly affecting the tribunal.
Mr Hayden had submitted fees of €1,489,353, and was allowed €383,810; Mr Martin Giblin SC submitted a bill for €1,452,183, and was allowed €441,376; Mr Jim McCullough sought €1,575,163 and was allowed €397,158; Mr John Trainor SC submitted €550,747 and was allowed €230,776.
Master Flynn said he had allowed Mr Hayden fees at the junior rate as he had seen no proof that the barrister was formally briefed as a senior counsel but rather as a junior throughout the tribunal.
Referring to the role of tribunals generally, Master Flynn said the Law Reform Committee or Department of Justice ought to consider other methods of inquiry or improving the existing system.