The High Court has refused three Portuguese companies’ application to withdraw a European Enforcement Order certificate covering costs awarded to ten Portuguese workers after their proceedings were settled.
In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2017, Mr Justice Tony O’Connor also declined to set aside the Master of the High Court’s earlier refusal to withdraw the certificate. He held that the Master had authority to issue it and that the certification requirements were met.
The workers came to Ireland in or around 2007 and 2008 to work on the Nenagh to Limerick motorway. They claimed, among other things, underpayment of wages and unlawful deductions. The proceedings were compromised on 29 April 2015. By consent, Gilligan J later ordered the companies to pay the workers’ costs once taxed and ascertained, in default of agreement.
A taxation certificate issued in July 2015 for €113,655.27. The judgment records that the amount awarded on taxation was less than the sum sought, and that no party objected to the determination. After an ex parte application, the Master issued a European Enforcement Order certificate on 25 November 2015. The workers’ solicitor later said an enforcement agent in Portugal had collected €126,397.50, including the taxed costs, interest and enforcement expenses. A separate challenge in Portugal had prevented the agent from paying the funds to discharge the costs.
The companies argued that the taxed costs did not qualify as an “uncontested claim” under the EU regulation governing European Enforcement Orders. They also argued that the Master was not a judicial authority capable of carrying out the certification. The Attorney General was notified and chose to be heard on the latter issue.
The judge found that the Master’s statutory position and powers, together with the applicable court rules and practice direction, allowed the Master to act as a court or tribunal for this purpose. He said the Master could refer questions of EU law to the Court of Justice of the European Union where appropriate.
On the costs, the judge noted that the companies had consented to the order requiring payment of costs, had not objected to the taxation, and had been able to seek review in Ireland. He concluded that the regulation covered the agreed obligation to pay costs as later ascertained. He found the challenge ill-founded and refused both to set aside the Master’s order and to withdraw the certificate. The ruling concerned the certificate and the costs enforcement challenge; the judgment does not revisit the underlying wage claims.