WITNESSES' expenses incurred by Goodman International and Mr Larry Goodman at the beef tribunal should be confined to those who gave oral evidence, the High Court decided yesterday.
The ruling also means that expenses should not apply to those witnesses who were lined up to give evidence but not called.
Legal sources have estimated that the decision would cut the overall costs by many hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The beef tribunal involved a massive taxation exercise. Costs were in excess of £9 million.
The High Court gave judgment yesterday on a challenge by the Minister for Finance to limit witness expenses incurred by Goodman International and Mr Goodman at the tribunal.
The question of what expenses should be allowed is being decided by a High Court Taxing Master and was adjourned pending the court challenge.
In the High Court, the Minister sought to limit witnesses' expenses to those who actually gave oral evidence. He contended that part of the large sums incurred were for the retention of experts, the delivery of reports by them and of public relations consultants, none of whom actually gave evidence. He claimed he should not be liable to pay those sums.
It was contended that Taxing Master James Flynn purported to allow the taxation and recovery from the Minister of witnesses' expenses incurred by Goodman International and Mr Goodman, including costs of interviewing and corresponding with witnesses and potential witnesses.
Miss Justice Carroll was told that about 45 other cases relating to costs will also have to be dealt with by the Taxing Master.
The beef tribunal sat from 1991 to 1993 and its report was delivered in July 1994. The chairman of the tribunal, Mr Justice Hamilton, made a large number of orders for costs in favour of counsel. He ruled that certain of the costs of Goodman International and Mr Goodman be paid by the Minister.
The inquiry into the taxation of costs was convened last October 24th before Mr Flynn. It was halted in November when the Minister sought leave to take the High Court proceedings.
For the Minister, it was argued that the chairman's order should be interpreted as having a limitation on witnesses' expenses. It was unusual that the court should be asked to intervene in a case before the Taxing Master, but it would be a difficult and lengthy inquiry and should not go ahead on an erroneous basis.
For the Taxing Master, it was submitted that the person best equipped to decide what correct disbursement to allow in the interests of justice was the Taxing Master. The court should be slow to disallow his jurisdiction.
The action was premature. It was inappropriate at this stage to have a hearing on whether other persons, experts or advisers should be cut out from consideration, it was argued.