A senior counsel who represented Mr Ray Burke at the Flood tribunal has rejected allegations that a deal was struck in which the tribunal would cover the former minister's multi-million euro legal costs.
Mr Joseph Finnegan, who represented Mr Burke and is now President of the High Court, confirmed yesterday that he wrote to the tribunal just over two weeks ago to confirm that no agreement was reached on legal costs following "inaccurate" media reports to the contrary.
The letter is understood to say that no understanding was reached in relation to Mr Burke's legal fees and that no representations or assurances were made on the issue.
A spokesman for the President of the High Court yesterday confirmed the details of Mr Justice Finnegan's letter to The Irish Times.
However, the issue of who will pay Mr Burke's costs has been the subject of mounting speculation with media reports quoting sources close to Mr Burke who believe that a deal has been done.
Mr Burke has lodged a claim for €10.5 million in costs.
However, because he is deemed by the tribunal to have obstructed its work, it is not seen as guaranteed that his costs will be met by the taxpayer.
Legal experts believe Mr Justice Flood's decision to retire will leave any decision to withhold payment at risk of a successful challenge in the courts as he heard the original evidence.
The Government has announced it will introduce legislation in October designed to deal with this issue, although there is no guarantee it will prevent a successful legal challenge.
Some legal sources estimate it will take more than a year for the tribunal to decide on the issue of costs, as it will involve analysing thousands of pages of documents, financial statements and court rulings.
Mr Justice Finnegan's letter was alluded to in a formal statement by the then chairman of the planning tribunal, Mr Justice Flood, last month, in which he denied that any deal had been done.
In the statement, published on the tribunal's website on Monday, June 9th, Mr Justice Flood revealed that Mr Justice Finnegan supported his version of events.
According to the statement, Mr Justice Finnegan, who ceased to be Mr Burke's barrister when he was appointed to the High Court, denied that he sought or reached any agreement on Mr Burke's legal costs at the time.
He also said that he ceased to act for Mr Burke because he was appointed to the High Court "and not for any other reason".
Confusion over the issue of costs is believed to have arisen following differing interpretations of a meeting of lawyers representing Mr Burke during hearings into the corruption claims made by Mr James Gogarty in 1999, according to a report in the The Sunday Business Post at the weekend.
The newspaper also quoted Mr Justice Flood as angrily denouncing allegations that a deal had been done on Mr Burke's costs.
"I did not say it. Joe Finnegan, will say I did not say it. It's rubbish," he told the newspaper.
