High Court says Zoe Developments is `disgrace to the construction industry'

One of the State's biggest construction companies was warned by a High Court judge yesterday that it was "not entitled to make profits on the blood and lives of its workers".

Mr Justice Kelly told Mr Liam Carroll, of Sycamore Road, Mount Merrion, Dublin, described as the effective controller of Zoe Developments Ltd, that he was "a disgrace to the construction industry" and should be ashamed of himself. Referring to the company, the judge said: "This defendant that you are responsible for is a criminal, and a recidivist criminal at that, and is so thanks to you."

He warned Mr Carroll that he would close him down on every site he had if he failed to comply with his obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Acts.

After prompting from Mr Justice Kelly, Mr Carroll offered to pay £100,000 to charity to demonstrate his "contrition" for consistent breaches of health and safety regulations. The judge said that the money would have to be paid within 48 hours and he would regard it as a substantial indication of the company's bona fides from now on.

Last week, Mr Justice Kelly closed the Zoe Developments site at Charlotte Quay, Ringsend Road, Dublin. A building worker, Mr James Masterson (24), was killed on the site two weeks ago and the judge heard that 13 breaches of the health and safety regulations had been noted there.

The judge granted an interim injunction last week to the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health to shut down all work on the site until specific measures were taken to reduce the risk to workers. He told the authority that it could return to court this week if it wished to seek an interlocutory injunction to have the site closed indefinitely.

In court yesterday, Mr Feargal Foley, counsel for the authority, said that a plan had been agreed with Zoe Developments. He sought an adjournment for one week so that implementation of the plan could be monitored.

The directors of Zoe Developments had been ordered to appear before the court. The judge asked for the names of the directors and was told that Mr Liam Carroll was effectively the director controlling the company. He was told that the other directors were Ms Roisin Carroll, also of Sycamore Road, Mount Merrion, and Mr David Torpey, of Vernon Avenue, Clontarf.

The judge summoned Mr Carroll to the witness box and severely criticised the company's health and safety record. He told him that he had summoned him before the court to underline the "extremely serious" view the court took of his behaviour. As the controller of Zoe Developments, Mr Carroll was therefore responsible for its acts and omissions, the judge said.

When the matter came before him last week, he had been confronted with a "very disquieting" action, the judge said. There had been a "wholesale failure" by the company to observe the minimum regulations prescribed by law to protect workers from injury and death on the Charlotte Quay site.

He had been told of 13 breaches of the regulations and evidence of a death on the site. "That was bad enough, but I also had evidence the company had 12 previous convictions for the same sort of activities on three separate sites at Grove Road, Bride Street and Dorset Street."

Unlike other criminals who appeared before the courts, Mr Carroll could not "plead social or economic deprivation in mitigation", nor could he assert "ignorance" of his responsibility.

The judge told Mr Carroll that he was one of the largest developers in the city and made handsome profits. "But the workers on whose sweat you make your money are treated with contempt. And so are the laws", he added.

He told Mr Carroll that he had behaved "as if he couldn't care less" about his workers and the laws of the State.

The judge said that fines had been imposed on Zoe Developments by the lower courts, but those fines "did not amount to so much as a fleabite to your profits and you were happy to pay them".

Mr Justice Kelly told Mr Carroll that this was now at an end and he was no longer in the lower courts. "This court has wider powers and can make orders to close you down", he said. "And close you down I will, on every site where I find conduct of that sort. You will stay closed down until you comply with your obligations.

"You are entitled to make profits on the sweat of your workers, but you are not entitled to make profit on the blood and lives of your workers. You are a disgrace to the construction industry and ought to be ashamed of yourself."

The judge then asked the court registrar to have Mr Carroll take the oath. He said that he had before him a plan which had been agreed between Zoe Developments and the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health.

He told Mr Carroll that he wanted an assurance that the health and safety plan agreed between his company and the authority would be implemented to the letter and that the company would co-operate with the authority in the implementation and policing of the plan. Mr Carroll gave the assurances sought.

The judge then asked him if he had anything to say to the court. When he did not respond, the judge said: "Would you not think of apologising at all? Would it not strike you or cross your mind that you might apologise?"

Mr Carroll then said that he would like to apologise for not having all the regulations fully in force on the day James Masterson was killed.

He said that the company had worked very hard over the past two weeks to put in place a health and safety scheme and had also put resources in place to ensure that such a situation would not occur again.

The judge then asked Mr Carroll if he was reading from a prepared script. Mr Carroll replied that he was referring to a schedule before him.

Mr Justice Kelly said that he would have thought there would be an element of spontaneity about the apology "given your total failure to have regard to your obligations".

He asked the developer if he bore any contrition. Mr Carroll replied: "I bear a lot of contrition for what has gone on."

The judge said that he could demonstrate that contrition in a tangible form. Mr Carroll asked him to explain and the judge said that there were many charities which could do with a contribution, particularly at this time of year.

The judge asked him how many apartments Zoe Developments had built in the past three years and how many were at present under construction. Mr Carroll replied that they had between 400 and 500 apartments under construction and had built 1,500 in the past three years at prices ranging, until recently, from £35,000 to £60,000.

The judge allowed a few minutes for consultation between Mr Carroll and his counsel. The court was then told that there would be a six-figure contribution to charity. The judge said that he wanted to know the figure and was told it was £100,000.

Mr Justice Kelly said that he regarded the amount offered as a substantial indication of the company's bona fides from now on. It was a satisfactory way to deal with the matter and went some way towards redressing the balance.

Since Zoe Developments operated mainly in the inner city, the judge said that he would allocate £50,000 to the St Vincent de Paul night shelter in Back Lane and the additional £50,000 to Temple Street Children's Hospital. The company was given 48 hours to pay over the money.

Mr Justice Kelly told Mr Carroll that he hoped this would bring home to him the seriousness of the situation.

The judge then told Mr Foley that he was glad the authority had brought the application before the court. However, he said, it was an application which should have been brought sooner, having regard to the extremely bad record of Zoe Developments.

He hoped the that the authority would avail in future of the option of going to the higher courts instead of to the lower courts, where developers demonstrated contempt for the fines imposed.

The judge consented to the application to adjourn the matter for one week and said that he would allow work to resume on the Charlotte Quay site provided that it was carried out in accordance with the health and safety plan agreed between the parties. If there was any failure to comply with the plan, or to obtain full co-operation in its implementation, he granted liberty to the authority to reapply without notice.