The Court of Appeal dismissed two appeals by Gama Construction (Ireland) Limited and its Turkish parent company, Gama Endustri Tesisleri Imalat Ve Montaj A.S., in a dispute over claims by Turkish workers who had been employed in Ireland. The ruling addressed jurisdiction and a procedural amendment; it did not decide whether the workers were underpaid or determine their employment claims.
The workers say they were not paid in accordance with the Irish Registered Employment Agreement for the construction industry. They seek declarations about the agreement’s application, outstanding wages, pension contributions and expenses, and damages. Gama Turkey relied on a clause in the workers’ individual employment contracts naming Ankara courts for disputes. The Court of Appeal noted that the relationship between that clause and an Irish jurisdiction clause in a separate agreement between the two Gama companies was not entirely clear; the workers were not parties to that company agreement.
The proceedings had been served on Gama Turkey in Turkey under an order made in 2008. The companies later sought a stay, arguing that Turkey was the appropriate forum. In 2009, the High Court refused the applications, concluding that Irish courts had jurisdiction under Council Regulation 44/2001 and that the Regulation displaced the common-law discretion to stay proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds. It also considered Ireland the more convenient forum if the Regulation did not apply.
The workers had initially sought service out of the jurisdiction under Order 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, without including the required endorsement referring to the Regulation. The High Court later allowed them to amend the summons. The companies appealed both the jurisdiction ruling and that amendment.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court that the Regulation could provide jurisdiction despite the procedural omission. It held that Gama Turkey was deemed domiciled in Ireland for these employment disputes because it had an establishment here, and that the rules for employment claims applied. The court also concluded that Order 11 was the appropriate route for service in the circumstances, including because Turkey was not an EU member state and there were two defendants.
The court found that the failure to include the endorsement did not make the proceedings void and that the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in allowing the summons to be amended. It dismissed both appeals. The judgment did not rule on liability, the amount of any sums due, or the merits of the workers’ claims.