The High Court has reserved judgment on the issue of who should pay the estimated €500,000 costs of the unsuccessful challenge by disability rights campaigner Kathy Sinnott to the result of the 2002 general election in the Cork South Central constituency.
The Minister for Health, Mr Martin, had topped the poll in that election while Ms Sinnott narrowly lost out on the contest for the fifth and final seat.
Mr Justice Kelly, who dismissed the challenge last January, yesterday heard submissions in relation to costs from a number of the parties involved in the case.
He said he would give judgment before April 1st, when this law term closes.
The challenge to the outcome of the May 2002 general election result in the constituency was brought after Ms Sinnott alleged Mr Martin had spent beyond his legal spending limit.
The 2002 election was the first to be governed by the Electoral Acts, 1997-2002 which were designed to regulate expenditure in elections and set spending limits for candidates.
The election was also affected by a High Court decision in May 2002 that outgoing parliamentarians must include in their election statements expenses incurred from public funds.
When the case came before the High Court last month, it was stated that Mr Martin would not be seeking his substantial legal costs from Ms Sinnott.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly was told that three parties - Mr Martin, Ms Sinnott and Mr Dan Boyle of the Green Party, who was a successful candidate in the general election in Cork South Central - were seeking contributions towards their costs from the Minister for the Environment.
Mr Paul Coffey SC, for the Minister for the Environment, opposed the contribution applications.
While the Minister was required under the legislation to be served with a copy of the petition, he was not required to take part in the proceedings. The Minister had been excused from participating and no objection had been taken to that by the parties now seeking their costs against him.
The court was not being asked to make an order for costs against the petitioner - Ms Sinnott - but she should not get her costs in circumstances where she had failed in her petition, Mr Coffey said.
Mr John Rogers SC, for Ms Sinnott and Mr Mark Minihan, who lives in the constituency and was also a petitioner, said the petitioners had come to court in circumstances where they could not know precisely whether there had been a compliance with the legislation and where the last seat had been won by a majority of only five or six votes.
The matters on which the court had ruled were all central to the petition.
The bringing of the petition was entirely proper, counsel argued. It was something that any elector was entitled to do. In this case, where the election was so close and given the issues involved, it should not be left to the petitioners to carry all their own costs.
Mr Donal O'Donnell SC, for Mr Martin, said his client had been brought into the proceedings and had succeeded. Mr Martin had had no option but to come into the case.
Once the proceedings had commenced, Mr Martin had had to come to court to defend them. If Ms Sinnott was entitled to recover costs, so must Mr Martin.
The proceedings had come to court amid enormous public interest, counsel added. The question of costs was at the discretion of the court Mr Colm Mac Eochaidh, for Mr Dan Boyle of the Green Party, who was also a successful candidate in Cork South Central, said. The State owed a responsibility to his client to pay him his costs. The case had been in the nature of an inquiry and parties who co-operated at tribunals got their costs.