The High Court has granted the relief sought by Profi Welders s.r.o. in its claim against R&R Mechanical Limited for payments arising from personnel supplied to an Irish power-plant project. It refused all relief sought by R&R in its counterclaim, which alleged that the supplied workers were substandard or incompetent.
In a judgment delivered on 29 January 2019, Mr Justice Max Barrett said Profi had established R&R’s liability under contract law for the sums claimed in its summons dated 8 February 2017. The judgment does not state the amount of those sums. The parties had no written contract governing the personnel supply arrangement: R&R requested named individuals and confirmed the hourly rate payable to Profi.
R&R’s counterclaim alleged that Profi had a contractual or other duty to ensure workers were competent for the tasks required, and that Profi breached that duty or was negligent by supplying staff R&R considered incompetent. The court found that Profi sought to ensure the workers were technically qualified, but had given no wider warranty. It was not established that Profi supplied workers who were unqualified for their assigned work.
The court also found that R&R was responsible for the project’s work systems, quality assurance, management and supervision of Profi’s personnel in Ireland, and any appropriate skills testing. Although R&R had raised some performance concerns, the arrangement generally worked well until it became clear R&R would not pay the outstanding sums. R&R had not asked Profi to replace any individuals. The court described the counterclaim as vague and unsubstantiated.
The judgment said the termination of R&R’s contract with the main contractor was a matter to which Profi was “in truth a stranger”. Documents suggested the termination was for convenience rather than cause, possibly after an on-site incident involving Gardaí. The court did not attribute responsibility for that termination to Profi.
The court also found, on the balance of probabilities, that work in Ireland by Profi employee Ms Z Solopova was chargeable to R&R, rather than complimentary as R&R had contended.
Finally, the judge noted late discovery of documents by both sides, but found no wrongdoing. The court said it had considered all documentation before it, including material discovered late.