Da Silva & Ors, Miranda & Ors and Da Silva &Ors -v- Rosas Construtores S.A. & Ors [2017] IECA 252 (04 October 2017)

Da Silva & Ors, Miranda & Ors and Da Silva &Ors -v- Rosas Construtores S.A. & Ors [2017] IECA 252 (04 October 2017)

Deductions for accommodation were not justified due to sub-standard conditions, but as accommodation was provided, plaintiffs are entitled to damages for inconvenience, distress, and loss of enjoyment, not full recovery of deductions; deductions for laundry were unlawful as laundry was not weighed as contractually required, entitling plaintiffs to full recovery; Courts Act interest at 8% was properly awarded as per statutory mandate.

Citation
[2017] IECA 252
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: 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; Plaintiff/respondent: 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; Plaintiff/respondent: 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; Defendant/appellant: Rosas Construtores S. A., Construcoes Gabriel A. S. Couto S. A., Empresa Deconstrucoes Amandio Carvalho S. A. trading as RAC Contractors and/or RAC Eire Partnership
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.
Legal Topics
Wrongful Wage Deductions, Breach of Contract, Damages for Inconvenience, Interest on Judgment Debts
Employment Law Contract Law Wrongful Wage Deductions Breach of Contract Damages for Inconvenience Interest on Judgment Debts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Plaintiff/respondent

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

Plaintiff/respondent

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

Plaintiff/respondent

Rosas Construtores S. A., Construcoes Gabriel A. S. Couto S. A., Empresa Deconstrucoes Amandio Carvalho S. A. trading as RAC Contractors and/or RAC Eire Partnership

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were deductions from employees' wages for accommodation and laundry services lawful under the employment contracts?
  2. 2 Are employees entitled to damages for inconvenience, distress, and loss of enjoyment due to sub-standard accommodation?
  3. 3 Is the High Court entitled to award Courts Act interest at 8% on damages awarded?

Ratio Decidendi

Deductions for accommodation were not justified due to sub-standard conditions, but as accommodation was provided, plaintiffs are entitled to damages for inconvenience, distress, and loss of enjoyment, not full recovery of deductions; deductions for laundry were unlawful as laundry was not weighed as contractually required, entitling plaintiffs to full recovery; Courts Act interest at 8% was properly awarded as per statutory mandate.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.

Orders

  • Re-trial in High Court on quantum of damages for inconvenience, distress, and loss of enjoyment due to sub-standard accommodation.
  • Affirmation of High Court decision regarding unlawful deductions for laundry services; plaintiffs entitled to recover these in full.