The Court of Appeal has refused to certify damages awards to 50 Portuguese construction workers as European Enforcement Orders, finding that their claims did not meet the EU regulation’s definition of an eligible claim. It also rejected the employers’ appeal against the High Court’s decision to make no order for costs on the certification application. A separate appeal over one worker’s name was allowed and remitted to the High Court.
The linked cases arose from work on the N7 Nenagh to Limerick Dual Carriageway in 2007 and 2008. The workers claimed underpaid wages, unlawful deductions and damages for poor accommodation. Earlier High Court findings, which the employers did not appeal, included systematic under-recording of hours and underpayment of wages. The Court of Appeal had previously sent the accommodation-damages issue back for reassessment.
The High Court made damages orders in December 2018 and, on 24 January 2019, refused the workers’ application for a European Enforcement Order. The workers cross-appealed that refusal, arguing that the employers’ limited participation in the trial meant the claims were effectively uncontested. The employers also appealed the decision to make no order for costs on the application.
The Court of Appeal held that the EU regulation did not permit a qualitative assessment of how meaningful a defendant’s participation had been once the defendant appeared or was represented at a hearing. The employers had been represented for part of the trial, even though the judgment records that they called no evidence and their questioning of witnesses did not challenge the workers’ case. The court said this participation prevented the claims from being treated as uncontested under the relevant provision. It also concluded that damages requiring individual assessment were not claims for a specific sum within the regulation’s definition. The workers had not sought partial certification, so the court did not consider whether any part of the awards might qualify.
On costs, the court found no basis to interfere with the High Court judge’s discretion. She could take account of the wider history and conduct of the litigation when deciding not to award costs to the employers, who had opposed the certification application.
The remaining cross-appeal concerned Carlos Manuel Oliveira Matos, named as the first plaintiff in proceedings 2013/12219P. The Court of Appeal was told that the intended plaintiff was Carlos Manuel Oliveira Martins, and that the name had been entered incorrectly on the summons. The High Court had made no award because it found no evidence for the named plaintiff. The appeal court did not find error by the trial judge, but allowed the case to return to the High Court so the workers’ solicitors could apply, on notice to the employers, to address the identity discrepancy and possible amendment of the proceedings. It did not itself amend the case title or award damages to Mr Martins.