A motorway construction consortium sued for underpayment and unlawful deduction of workers' wages "contrived to scupper" a settlement of the case, a High Court judge has said.
No matter which way he looked at the case presented by the Portuguese consortium, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor said it was contrived to scupper the effective way under which the settlement was being enforced under European regulations.
The attempt by the consortium to “hinder the effect” of the settlement by relying on a “strained interpretation” of those regulations without attempting to show any unfairness, or absence of any required judicial act, renders the defendants’ challenge “ill-founded”.
The case concerned an application in relation to legal costs arising from the settlement of the wages underpayment case brought by 10 Portuguese workers employed on the construction of the M7 Nenagh to Limerick motorway.
They sued Rosas Construtores, Construcoes Gabriel AS Couto, and Empresa Deconstrucoes Amandio Carvalho, all trading under the tile of RAC Contractors and RAC Eire Partnership.
Mr Justice O’Connor said the workers were employed by RAC on the completion of the motorway around 2007/8. They later sued RAC for underpayment and unlawful deductions of wages.
Certificate of taxation
The case was settled on the day it was due to be heard, July 1st, 2015, and an order for the workers’ legal costs was made against RAC, subject to taxation in default of agreement. A certificate of taxation for €113,655 was issued later that July, and a lesser sum was later assessed by the High Court taxing master.
No review occurred, and the defendants’ solicitors stated they had no instructions in relation to the payment of costs, Mr Justice O’Connor said.
The workers’ lawyers applied to the master of the High Court, who issued a European Enforcement Order (EEO) in relation to recovering the costs. The lawyers then told the defendants an order allowing enforcement of the EEO was in the process of being executed in Portugal.
Appeal
Nearly a year later, the judge said, the defendants’ solicitors applied for withdrawal or rectification of the EEO to the master of the High Court, who refused.
The defendants then appealed that refusal to the High Court; this appeal was rejected on Wednesday by Mr Justice O’Connor.
He said the defendants had agreed to a settlement and to ascertainment of costs, which is envisaged by the EEO regulations. They also did not object to their obligation to bear such costs.
He ruled the requirements for the certification of the costs, following adjudication by the taxing master, were fulfilled.
