Haughey could face £1m bill for not co-operating

Former Taoiseach, Mr Charles Haughey, could be facing a bill of more than £1 million as a result of his attitude towards the Dunnes payments tribunal, according to sources. As well as his legal costs, which sources say are unlikely to be less than £100,000, Mr Haughey could be asked to pay other expenses incurred by the tribunal as a result of his lack of co-operation.

These include applications made in courts in London and the Cayman Islands, and orders of discovery against a number of banks. Some banks assigned senior personnel to the task, as well as engaging solicitors and barristers.

The court cases and orders of discovery were necessary to prove Mr Haughey was not telling the truth when he said he had not received £1.3 million from Mr Ben Dunne. "Virtually all of that would have been unnecessary if he had made an admission at the outset," said one source.

The chairman of the tribunal, Mr Justice McCracken, will not decide on costs until all of the tribunal's work is completed. A decision on whether to continue with an appeal in the Cayman Islands will not be taken until the middle of next month. The decision on costs will not be made until the Cayman process is either abandoned or pursued and completed.

If the appeal is abandoned then the chairman is likely to rule on costs at the end of September.

Barristers for the Dunnes payments to politicians tribunal have earned an estimated £100,000 to £120,000 each for their work since their appointment seven months ago. The fixed rates set for the tribunal barristers is a "refresher" fee of £1,450 for each day the tribunal sits, and £1,000 for each eight-hour day worked when the tribunal was not sitting. The majority of the barristers' work was done on non-sitting days.

The rates are lower than those paid to counsel for the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Processing Industry, which sat for 226 days a number of years ago. The beef tribunal barristers received £1,800 a day refresher fees. The tribunal barristers, Mr Denis McCullough SC, Mr Michael Collins SC and Mr Anthony As ton, were appointed on February 10th and began work soon afterwards. The tribunal solicitors, Mr John Lawless and Ms Joanne Dwyer, are paid for their work at the normal rates paid to solicitors working for the Chief State Solicitor's office.

Counsel and solicitors for the various parties represented at the Dunnes payments tribunal will have their own rates fixed with their clients. Mr Justice McCracken will decide whether to award costs, wholly or otherwise, to each of these parties. It is almost certain that the Taxing Master of the High Court will then have to rule on whether the rates agreed between clients and their legal representatives should be paid.

In his report, Mr Justice Mc Cracken said it was his belief some "missing links" in the tribunal's work in relation to Mr Haughey and the Ansbacher Deposits could only be discovered in the Cayman Islands.

In particular, information there might shed more light on Mr Haughey's knowledge of the debiting and crediting of funds in the deposits belonging to him. Given that the Cayman banker, Mr John Furze, has died, the tribunal must now weigh up the benefits of proceeding with the Cayman appeal against the cost of doing so.

There may also be an issue in that the original case involved Mr Furze, with the other named parties stating they would agree to whatever decision was arrived at. However, with Mr Furze now deceased, the status of the case is now a legal issue.

It is understood that if it is necessary for the tribunal to begin its application afresh in the Cayman Islands, then the matter will not be pursued. The application in the Cayman Islands is to gain information specifically about Mr Haughey and the Dunne payments made to him. It would not be possible for the tribunal to seek information on any other issues, including the identity of the other owners of the monies in the Ansbacher Deposits.