The High Court Taxing Master has ruled that the former Dublin West TD, Mr Liam Lawlor, should pay legal costs of €630,000 arising out of legal proceedings relating to the Flood tribnal.
Mr Lawlor had been billed for €647,000, but this figure was reduced to €630,000 by the Taxing Master, Mr Charles Moran, yesterday. Both figures include VAT at 21 per cent.
Mr Lawlor has the option of appealing the ruling to the High Court.
Last night Mr Lawlor, who is abroad, told The Irish Times that he had not known the matter of costs was due for decision by the Taxing Master yesterday. He said he needed time to consider if he would appeal the decision.
The Taxing Master made his ruling following an appeal by Mr Lawlor against an original award of costs relating to fees for barristers and solicitors incurred by the Flood tribunal during various High Court applications.
Some of the High Court proceedings taken by the Flood tribunal resulted in Mr Lawlor having to spend three periods in prison for not co-operating with the tribunal.
He was jailed for a week in early 2001, a further week in early 2002 and a month in February 2002.
Yesterday, Mr Moran, dealing with solicitors' instruction fees, said the assessing and determining of a fair and reasonable instructions fee was at times a difficult task.
It was his duty as Taxing Master, having considered all the evidence, submissions and documents submitted, to strike a fee that fairly and adequately remunerated the instructing solicitor for the work done and services rendered throughout the litigation.
Apart from two appeals to the Supreme Court, the litigation was novel and unique and involved complex and difficult issues of law relating to discovery and contempt.
Mr Moran said he was satisfied the burden on the solicitor for the costs was onerous. The volume of documents discovered was considerable. Each affidavit and the contents of the discovered documents, which included numerous bank statements, had to be cross-referenced and painstakingly checked item by item.
It was the manner in which Mr Lawlor attempted to or failed to comply with the orders for discovery or make discovery in the proper manner that imposed "this monumental examination task" on the solicitor for the costs, he said.
For the tribunal to succeed in the proceedings, it was essential that a minute and detailed analysis of each and every affidavit be undertaken by its solicitor and her staff. That exercise was necessary to file replying affidavits detailing Mr Lawlor's failure to adequately and properly comply with the discovery orders. The ligitation in question was being conducted against the background of legitimate public interest and concern, Mr Moran added. All the litigation was necessary and appropriate in compelling Mr Lawlor to comply with the orders for discovery.