The High Court has refused applications by Gama Construction Ireland Limited and Turkish company Gama Endustri Tesisleri Imalat ve Montaj A.S. to stay proceedings brought by 491 workers seeking employment-related payments and other relief.
The workers’ claims include alleged unpaid wages, expenses, holiday and sick pay, and pension entitlements under a registered employment agreement. Their statement of claim put the total at €40,332,659.06 and also sought exemplary damages. Those claims have not been determined in this judgment.
The companies entered conditional appearances to contest the Irish courts’ jurisdiction and argued that Turkey was the appropriate forum. They relied on the workers’ Turkish residence and language, witnesses and documents said to be in Turkey, employment contracts containing an Ankara jurisdiction clause, and proceedings brought there by some workers.
The plaintiffs argued that the Brussels Regulation applied and prevented an Irish court from declining jurisdiction in favour of a non-EU country. They also said the claims concerned work in Ireland and Irish employment law, and pointed to the Irish company’s presence, work permits and Labour Inspectorate material.
Justice Dunne held that the plaintiffs could rely on the Regulation as the basis for jurisdiction, even though the summons lacked the required endorsement and the Turkish company had been served under the ordinary rules for service outside the jurisdiction. She said that procedural error did not remove jurisdiction under the Regulation, though the pleadings might need amendment to state its basis.
On that footing, the court found that the Regulation, as applied in the decision in Owusu, precluded the companies’ discretionary application for a forum non conveniens stay. The court did not decide the workers’ underlying employment claims or the separate questions raised by the defendants about whether some claims had already been litigated in Turkey or whether a multi-plaintiff action was appropriate; it said those matters were outside the application before it.
The judge also gave an alternative conclusion in case the Regulation did not apply. Although the court faced practical difficulties involving witnesses and language, she considered that the claims had their most real and substantial connection with Ireland, including because the work and registered employment agreement were connected to this jurisdiction and Irish law would apply. She noted concerns about whether workers could recover their full entitlements in Turkey. The court therefore refused the stay application.