The High Court ordered Aer Lingus plc to pay costs in three related sets of proceedings brought by employees over pay entitlements after their secondment to TEAM Aer Lingus. The ruling concerned costs only; it did not decide the unresolved claims for personal injuries or other claims reserved under the parties’ settlement.
The judgment, delivered by Miss Justice Laffoy on 14 February 2011, addressed costs incurred after a Supreme Court order of 22 March 2006 and up to a settlement agreement dated 7 July 2008. The agreement left questions of costs to the High Court.
The King proceedings began in 1994 and the Byrne proceedings in 2000. Both concerned employees transferred back to Aer Lingus after the sale of TEAM Aer Lingus. In the King case, the Supreme Court had removed a four-year limit on the employees’ entitlement to be treated as if they had never left Aer Lingus, including remuneration at the levels paid to non-seconded mechanical engineers. It sent the assessment of money owing back to the High Court.
A separate case, the Barber proceedings, followed a dispute over whether the employees should receive pay based on their former engineering status or on lower-grade jobs to which Aer Lingus said they had been redeployed. The employees alleged the company was not giving effect to the court orders. Aer Lingus disputed their interpretation and argued that the new proceedings were unnecessary and that redeployment affected their pay.
Justice Laffoy concluded that Aer Lingus’s position after the Supreme Court order made the Barber proceedings necessary to protect employees’ current and future pay rights, including pension entitlements. She also found the employees could pursue damages claims only in fresh proceedings, although those claims were later withdrawn as part of the settlement. The court did not assess those damages in this costs judgment.
The court ordered Aer Lingus to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the Barber proceedings, including two motions, with costs to be taxed if the parties could not agree. It also awarded the costs of resolving the King case assessment, including work to narrow and settle issues. The same assessment-cost basis applies to the Byrne claims, along with costs of prosecuting that case through delivery of the statement of claim. The court declined to award Byrne costs as though it had been separately tried.
To prevent duplicate recovery, the costs of hearings in 2007 and 2008 and the costs hearing itself were to be treated as costs in the Barber proceedings. The judgment excluded later costs relating to claims left for determination under the settlement agreement.