Firms seek to overturn ruling over CRH ‘bias’

Companies of businessman Seamus Maye are seeking to overturn a High Court decision halting their action alleging that they were forced out of business due to the alleged operation of a cartel in the cement industry by cement giant CRH.

Mr Justice John Cooke halted the companies’ actions in July after finding that “manifestly inordinate” and inexcusable delay in prosecuting the case since it was initiated in late 1996 had seriously prejudiced the defendants’ rights to a fair trial.

The companies are now seeking to have that decision overturned on grounds of “objective bias” by Mr Justice Cooke arising from his having had a shareholding in CRH.

CRH is opposing the applications, and has also brought motions which, if granted, would require the companies to provide security for the legal costs of the proceedings.

The various matters came before the Supreme Court yesterday.

After hearing from the sides, the Chief Justice, Ms Justice Susan Denham, agreed to adjourn them to next month for further case management.

The proceedings were initiated in 1996 by three related companies, Framus, Amantiss, and Wilbury. Framus ceased trading in 1993 and the other two were placed in voluntary liquidation in April 1994.

The companies have alleged that CRH and its subsidiaries, Readymix and Kilsaran, abused dominant positions in cement and concrete markets, conspired to fix prices and forced the plaintiffs out of business between 1993 and 1994. The claims were denied.

The Supreme Court heard yesterday the liquidator of Amantiss and Wilbury was not authorising the companies’ appeal but was willing to assign those companies’ right of appeal on conditions related to meeting the costs of those.

In the High Court last week, Mr Justice Cooke said he would cease managing the long-running action by Goode Concrete against CRH and other companies over alleged anti-competitive practices. The judge was speaking after the Goode firm expressed concern the purchase of CRH shares on behalf of the judge raised a reasonable apprehension of objective bias.

Mr Justice Cooke stressed he had told both sides in Nov 2010, when he took up the Goode case, that he had a CRH shareholding but neither side raised any difficulty with it at that time.