The High Court dismissed an engineer’s claims against Iaralco Limited over subcontracted work and awarded the company the euro equivalent of IR£3,865 on its counterclaim, in a judgment delivered on 16 March 2007.
John K. Rogers, trading as John Rogers Engineering, had subcontracted work from the company from 1999. A later arrangement, made in October 2000, covered polishing Magne Bumpers and cutting rubber strips. The relationship ended in early 2001, and Rogers issued invoices seeking several sums.
The court rejected Rogers’s claim for IR£15,000 as the balance of his original IR£45,000 demand for bumper polishing. The judge found that the parties had agreed on 31 January 2001 to settle that claim for IR£30,000, which Rogers invoiced and the company paid. Rogers argued the agreement was made under duress because he needed money for wages and was recovering from surgery. The judge found those circumstances did not establish duress and held the settlement binding.
A claim for IR£18,221.25 over the price for cutting and packaging rubber strips also failed. The court found the agreed price was IR£3.62 per unit and that Rogers did not seek an increase until late February 2001. The company then agreed to raise the price to IR£7.50 from March, but not retrospectively. The judge was not satisfied that the work complained of was significantly beyond what Rogers had agreed to do.
Rogers also sought IR£13,087.59 for equipment acquired for the work. The judge accepted the company’s evidence that it had agreed to pay fair market value, assessed at IR£1,380, rather than the equipment’s purchase cost. The company had paid IR£5,000 on account as part of a 30 March 2001 settlement. The judge ruled it could recover the overpayment through its counterclaim.
The court dismissed a further claim for IR£3,288.82 over money allegedly withheld for defective parts, finding no evidence showing how the amount arose. A claim for IR£15,000 in severance also failed. The judge found the company had agreed to a £10,000 severance payment on condition that its materials were smoothly transferred back. The materials were not surrendered, and the company had to seek an injunction to recover them.
The judgment dismissed Rogers’s action and entered judgment for the company on its counterclaim for the euro equivalent of IR£3,865. It did not specify the euro amount.