Neutral Citation: [2016] IEHC 195
THE HIGH COURT
[2012 No. 2012/9535P]
BETWEEN
JOSE MONTERIRO DA SILVA, NUNO PERDRO GONCALVES LOPES, DAVID SARAIVA MATIAS, ANTONIO BARBOSA MOREIRA, JOSE FRANCISCO OLIVEIRA DA SILVA, JORGE DA SILVA LUIS, JOSE TEXEIRA GONCALVES, ANTONIO JORGE OLIVEIRA BESSA, FRANCISCO DA COSTA FERRIERA, JOSE LUIS FREITAS LIMA
PLAINTIFFS
AND
ROSAS CONSTRUTORES S.A., CONSTRUCOES GABRIEL A.S. COUTO S.A. & EMPRESA DECONSTRUCOES AMANDIO CARVALHO S.A. trading under the style and title of RAC CONTRACTORS and/or RAC EIRE PARTNERSHIP
DEFENDANTS
[2012 No. 9537P]
BETWEEN
CARLOS MANUEL MIRANDA, ALFREDO MARTINS RODRIGUES FERNANDES, VICTOR MANUEL MARQUES DE OLIVEIRA, MARIA PIEDOSA RIBEIRO CARDOSA GASTALHO, FRANCISCO PEREIRA MARTINS, JOSE MARIA COEHLO BARBOSA, CARLOS JOSE LONGA
PLAINTIFFS
AND
ROSAS CONSTRUCTORES S.A., CONSTRUCOES GABRIEL A.S. COUTO S.A & EMPRESA DECONSTRUCOES AMANDIO CARVALHO S.A. all trading under the style and title of RAC CONTRACTORS and/or RAC EIRE PARTNERSHIP
[2012 No. 9538P]
BETWEEN
ARMANDO AGOSTINHO ALVES DA SILVA, ALVARO ABILIO QUEIROS COEHLO, HELDER FIGUEIREDO, MARIO AUGUSTO RAMALHO GASTALHO, SAMUEL FILIPE DA SILVA OLIVERIA, JOSE ANTONIO FONSECA RIBEIRO, ALBERTO BESSA LEITE, LUIS RODRIGUES DIAS MOURATO, JOSE DUARTE MAGALHAES, JOSE MARIA MARTINS VELOSO
PLAINTIFFS
AND
ROSAS CONSTRUTORES S.A., CONSTRUCOES GABRIEL A.S. COUTO S.A. & EMPRESA DECONSTRUCOES AMANDIO CARVALHO S.A. all trading under the style and title of RAC CONTRACTORS and/or RAC EIRE PARTNERSHIP
DEFENDANTS
Costs Ruling of Mr Justice David Keane delivered on the 15th April 2016
1. I gave judgment in these cases on the 18th March 2016. In each case I found that the plaintiffs are entitled to an award of damages for breach of contract against the defendants.
2. When the matter came back before the Court to deal with the appropriate consequential orders on the 8th April 2016, the plaintiffs sought an order for the costs of the proceedings against the defendants in each case on the basis of the usual rule under Order 99, rule 1 (3) of the RSC that those costs should follow the event.
3. In response, the defendants invoke the well-known decision of Clarke J. in Veolia Water UK plc v Fingal County Council [2007] 2 IR 81 and submit that there is special cause why the plaintiffs should not get their full costs. The defendants submit that this was a complex case and that the plaintiffs did not succeed on every issue. They contend that in the special or unusual circumstances of this case, the Court should conclude that the costs of the parties were increased by virtue of the plaintiffs having raised additional issues upon which they were not successful and that the Court should reflect that in its order for costs. They point out that the trial before me ran over 16 days and that a discrete element of the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim (that they were not provided with board of a reasonable standard) did not succeed. They also point out that a number of separate heads of claim alleging breaches of various employment law statutes though not ultimately pressed, were never expressly abandoned and, therefore, should be considered to have failed as well. They also point to the fact that the plaintiff sought increased damages under various different headings, none of which were awarded.
4. Having carefully considered these submissions, I have come to the following conclusions. The part of the plaintiffs’ case concerning their plea that the board provided to them was not of a reasonable standard did not comprise a very significant element of the testimony of any of the witnesses. The defendants did not call any evidence on the issue. Argument on the point was limited and concise. Similarly, the plaintiffs’ claims for various additional statutory reliefs and increased damages under various headings were not pressed (although I acknowledge that the defendants felt constrained to deal with them in submissions) and little time was spent on those points in argument.
5. In all of the circumstances, I take the view that the case, while protracted, was not especially complex and was predominantly concerned with the plaintiffs’ claim of breach of contract in which they were almost, though not quite, completely successful.
6. For these reasons, I am satisfied that there is no cause to depart from the usual rule in the circumstances of this case and I will make an order for costs in favour of the plaintiffs.
