The Court of Appeal has dismissed seven appeals by three Portuguese construction companies against damages awarded to former employees, finding that the companies’ conduct of the litigation amounted to an abuse of process.
In a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Costello on 29 July 2019, the court granted the former employees’ motion to dismiss the appeals. The decision ended the appeals; it did not rehear or reassess the damages awarded by the High Court.
The seven related cases arose from work on the N7 Nenagh to Limerick dual carriageway. The workers claimed damages for breaches of their employment contracts, including underpayment and unlawful wage deductions. In earlier proceedings, High Court findings that the companies had systematically under-recorded hours and underpaid wages were not appealed. A 2017 Court of Appeal decision remitted the accommodation damages issue for reassessment.
In December 2018, following a trial that proceeded for much of its duration without legal representation for the companies, the High Court awarded the workers a total of €1,200,054.73. It also ordered the companies to pay trial costs and €56,417.26 on account of those costs. The companies appealed the entire order, arguing, among other things, that the trial judge had not made adequate individual findings and had erred in assessing damages and tax.
The workers argued that the appeals were part of a pattern intended to delay payment. The companies denied an improper purpose and said they were exercising their right to challenge the High Court decision. The Court of Appeal noted that they had filed no replying affidavit addressing the allegations about their conduct.
Justice Costello considered the history of repeated adjournment applications, changes of solicitors, failures to participate meaningfully in the High Court trial, unpaid court-ordered sums and earlier failures to provide security for costs. She concluded that the companies’ conduct was serious and persistent and that the appeals were being used to delay the proceedings and payment. The court also found that costs orders had not compensated the workers, as no money had been paid under costs orders dating back to 2015.
The court held that dismissing the appeals was a proportionate response in the circumstances, given the public interest in the administration of justice and finality in litigation. It did not determine the merits of each appeal ground. The order dismissed all seven appeals.