The Plaintiff is a block layer and for several years he operated as a sub-contractor to different builders within the State and was the holder of a C2 certificate from the Revenue Commissioners which entitled him to work as a self-employed sub-contractor on building sites. The Plaintiff had been refused a membership with BATU, the building and allied trades’ Union. It was BATU’s policy that the union existed to protect workers who were in direct employment (or unemployment) and to limit its membership to employees of building contractors who could provide confirmation that they did not hold a C2 certificate. When the Plaintiff left in the 1990s to work abroad, he did not pay his union dues and thus, his membership lapsed. Upon his return to Ireland in 1997, he sought to re-join the union as building contractors in the Limerick area would only engage block layers who were members of BATU. The Plaintiff claimed that his constitutional right to work had been infringed and that BATU had conspired to prevent him working. The Plaintiff added that being refused membership of BATU meant that he could not find work in the Limerick area, and he claimed that it was essential for him to work locally as he has a child with additional needs.

The High Court awarded the Plaintiff the sum of €15,000 in damages, however, the Plaintiff appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the award of general damages was too low and should have included damages for loss of opportunity. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge in the High Court was wrong to exclude damages for loss of opportunity. It was held that the trial judge had taken the view that the Plaintiff was required to vouch his loss of opportunity and had failed to do so. The court of appeal stated that this was incorrect because it had already been established in the 2016 appeal ruling that the Plaintiff had lost a number of jobs from BATU’s conduct. Accordingly, the trial judge was not entitled to disregard the evidence of lost opportunity that had already been provided in the case.

The Court of Appeal further highlighted that the trial judge should have additionally awarded exemplary damages. Further, the court held that the trial judge failed to outline why that the breached right in the case was “far less severe” than other breached constitutional rights. Therefore, the court held that it would award €22,500 in general damages and €7,500 in exemplary damages to the Plaintiff. On the issue of costs, the court held that the trial judge had erred by taking irrelevant matters into consideration, such as the plaintiff’s surprise to have succeeded. The Court of Appeal also ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to 85 per cent of costs against BATU in the liability hearing and all his costs of the quantum hearing and appeal.
https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/69978278-d954-4292-97f1-e9efac7ec87e/[2021]%20IECA%20265.pdf/pdf#view=fitH