The High Court yesterday increased by £90,000 the instruction fees to be paid to solicitors who acted for the former tanaiste and Labour Party leader, Mr Dick Spring, and the former Labour MEP, Mr Barry Desmond, at the beef tribunal. The decision means Spring, Murray and Co, solicitors, which includes Mr Donal Spring, brother of the former tanaiste, will receive a total of £575,000.
On appeal, Mr Justice Smyth raised the instruction fees for the legal firm from £485,000 to £575,000. He also increased the fees for barristers who acted for the two Labour Party politicians.
He was ruling on an appeal against an award in May 1999 by Mr James Flynn, a Taxing Master of the High Court. It was claimed the costs sums decided on were too low.
The original solicitors' bill submitted was for £785,000. In July 1998 this was more than halved by Mr Flynn when he allowed fees of £320,000. Objections were taken to that figure, and in a second ruling the Taxing Master increased the figure to £485,000.
Yesterday's decision means the instructing solicitors will receive £575,000 while Mr Justice Smyth also increased the brief fee for senior counsel from £52,500 to £75,000. One junior counsel in the case will be paid a brief fee of about £50,000, two-thirds of that allowed to senior counsel.
A second junior counsel in the case, who does not get a brief fee, will receive refresher fees of about £85,000. The refresher fee for the second junior counsel had been refused by the Taxing Master but, when the case came to the High Court, the State conceded that it should be paid.
Mr Spring and Mr Desmond were represented at 190 out of the 226 sitting days of the beef tribunal. At the conclusion of the sittings, they were awarded costs. The costs then went before the Taxing Master to be "taxed".
Following yesterday's judgment, Mr Donal Spring pointed out that the tribunal had concluded in 1992. However, at the end of the day he was very happy, the solicitor said. His side had had "a very high hurdle to cross" to prove that the Taxing Master's ruling was unjust, but the High Court judge had so found.
"All we ever wanted was to be treated the same as everybody else in our position," he said. Mr Spring said he was always conscious of the difficulties of the case in relation to documentation but this was because they could not keep notes of confidential matters. His side was always going to protect its sources at the tribunal and it had succeeded in doing so.
Counsel for lawyers for Mr Spring and Mr Desmond had argued that the costs allowed to them were completely unjust, in particular when compared to amounts allowed to legal teams for other politicians who had been represented at the tribunal.
It was submitted during the hearing that the Taxing Master had used language which was offensive. In his ruling, he had compared the work of the Spring/Desmond solicitors to that of other lawyers before the tribunal and characterised their work as "Lilliputian" in comparison.
The tribunal was chaired by Mr Justice Hamilton, who was later appointed Chief Justice and is now retired. It was set up to inquire into allegations regarding illegal activities, fraud and malpractice in and in connection with the beef-processing industry.