Miranda v Rosas Construtores SA ; Alves Da Silva v Rosas Construtores SA ; Monteiro Da Silva v Rosas Construtores SA ; Oliveira Matos v Rosas Construtores SA ; Alves Guedes Monteiro v Rosas Construtores SA ; Almeida v Rosas Construtores SA ; Abrantes Do Carmo v Rosas Construtores SA
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Costello |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IECA 237 |
| Date | 29 July 2019 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | Neutral Citation Number: [2019] IECA 237 Record nos. 2019/163 2019/164 2019/165 2019/166 2019/167 2019/168 2019/169 2012 No. 9538 P 2012 No. 9535 P 2013 No. 12219 P 2014 No. 9212 P 2014 No. 2244 P 2014 No. 3319 P |
[2019] IECA 237
THE COURT OF APPEAL
Costello J.
Peart J.
Baker J.
Costello J.
Neutral Citation Number: [2019] IECA 237
Record nos. 2019/163
2019/164
2019/165
2019/166
2019/167
2019/168
2019/169
2012 No. 9538 P
2012 No. 9535 P
2013 No. 12219 P
2014 No. 9212 P
2014 No. 2244 P
2014 No. 3319 P
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
AND
Damages – Breach of contract – Costs – Plaintiffs seeking an order dismissing and/or striking out the defendants’ appeals as an abuse of process – Whether it was in the public interest to dismiss the appeals
Facts: By order of 24th January, 2019, Stewart J in the High Court ordered the defendants, Rosas Construtores SA, Construcoes Gabriel AS Couto SA and Empresa Deconstrucoes Amandio Carvalho SA, to pay damages to the plaintiffs in seven related proceedings, being her assessment of the damages to be awarded to the individual plaintiffs for breach of their respective contracts of employment by the defendants including damages for inconvenience, stress and general loss of enjoyment by reason of the substandard accommodation provided to the plaintiffs by the defendants. The court also ordered the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of €56,417.26 on account in respect of the plaintiffs’ costs which were to be taxed in default of agreement. On the 5th April, 2019 the defendants appealed and sought to have the judgment and order of the High Court set aside and to have the matter remitted to the High Court for reconsideration. The defendants sought an order for the costs of the appeal and of the hearing before the High Court. The appeals were listed for hearing on 1st July, 2021. It was against that background that the plaintiffs issued a motion to the Court of Appeal court seeking an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court dismissing and/or striking out the defendants’ appeal as an abuse of process. They alleged that the appeal was pursued for an improper ulterior motive, namely to delay paying the plaintiffs the sums due to them both by way of damages and by way of legal costs in circumstances where liability was not in issue and where they had repeatedly failed either to abide by orders of the court, failed to participate in the hearing before the High Court and had generally sought to conduct the litigation in a fashion to delay its progress as far as possible.
Held by Costello J that the public interest in the proper administration of justice and upholding the integrity of that system, as well as the private interests of the plaintiffs, required that the abuse of process by the defendants which had been established by the plaintiffs was met, not by addressing each specific item of abuse, but in bringing the appeals to an end.
Costello J held that she would grant the relief sought on the notice of motion and dismiss all of the appeals.
Appeals dismissed.
By order of 24th January, 2019 Stewart J. in the High Court ordered the defendants to pay damages to the plaintiffs in seven related proceedings, being her assessment of the damages to be awarded to the individual plaintiffs for breach of their respective contracts of employment by the defendants including damages for inconvenience, stress and general loss of enjoyment by reason of the substandard accommodation provided to the plaintiffs by the defendants. The court also ordered the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of €56,417.26 on account in respect of the plaintiffs” costs which were to be taxed in default of agreement.
On the 5th April, 2019 the defendants (‘the appellants’) appealed and sought to have the judgment and order of the High Court set aside and to have the matter remitted to the High Court for reconsideration. The appellants sought an order for the costs of the appeal and of the hearing before the High Court.
The appeals are listed for hearing on 1st July, 2021.
It is against this background that the plaintiffs/respondents issued a motion to this court seeking an order pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court dismissing and/or striking out the appellants” appeal as an abuse of process. They allege that the appeal is pursued for an improper ulterior motive, namely to delay paying the plaintiffs the sums due to them both by way of damages and by way of legal costs in circumstances where liability is not in issue and where they had repeatedly failed either to abide by orders of the court, failed to participate in the hearing before the High Court and have generally sought to conduct the litigation in a fashion to delay its progress as far as possible.
Before considering the detail of the history of the litigation and the conduct of the appellants, I will first consider the principles of law governing the dismissal of proceedings, including defences and appeals, on the grounds that the continuance of the litigation would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
It has long been recognised that the courts have an inherent jurisdiction to control their own processes and that the court will not permit abuses of its processes. In Tracey v. Burton [2016] IESC 16 at para. 47 MacMenamin J. in the Supreme Court stated:-
‘[A] court is entitled to generally have regard to the manner in which proceedings are conducted. While the jurisdiction to strike out proceedings for abuse of process, in one form or another, is to be exercised sparingly, it is a sanction which cannot be ignored. Similarly, while parties have a right to defend proceedings, it may be necessary to identify the manner in which the defendants' rights are best vindicated. A court may, under the Constitution, take whatever proportionate steps are necessary to protect the integrity of its own processes and procedures, and the inherent right of courts, themselves, to manage their own procedures in a manner which balances the rights of litigants with the rights of the public, and other litigants.’
This clear statement encapsulates many of the principles which have been developed over time since the seminal case of Barry v. Buckley [1981] IR 306. The jurisdiction is the inherent jurisdiction of the court to control its own processes. The jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and in clear cases only. The court has a duty to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. The jurisdiction applies to defendants as well as to plaintiffs. The court is concerned with the rights of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miranda v Rosas Construtores
...This was appealed to the Court of Appeal. 6 In the judgment of the Court of Appeal which is the subject matter of this application ( [2019] IECA 237), that Court struck out the appeal before it for abuse of Court process despite the fact that there may have been a stateable appeal. The Cour......