Delays alleged in building materials price-fixing case

THE ACTIONS of CRH, Kilsaran, Readymix and other building materials companies contributed to the delay in a case being brought against them for damages over breaches of competition law, the High Court was told yesterday.

Three related companies, Framus, Amantiss and Wilbury, are taking a case against CRH, Readymix, Kilsaran and Grafton-owned CPI, alleging that they broke competition law provisions that forced the plaintiffs out of business.

This week the defendants argued that the High Court should dismiss the claims on the grounds of the plaintiffs’ “inordinate and inexcusable delay” in prosecuting the case, which was instituted in 1996, and warned that it would be unjust to allow it go ahead.

However, in affidavits submitted to the court, Framus points out that the defendants engaged in litigation over various procedural issues related to the case, and that this contributed to the delay.

Framus and its co-plaintiffs claim that CRH, Readymix, Kilsaran and CPI abused dominant positions in cement and concrete markets and conspired to fix prices.

They also maintain that CRH imposed a restrictive non-compete clause on Amantiss and Wilbury when it bought their assets and goodwill in the early 1990s. The four defendants deny the accusations.

CRH and the other defendants concentrated, in particular, on the fact that it took Framus 14 months from the beginning of proceedings in 1996 to deliver a statement of claim.

They also pointed out that all progress in the case had halted between 2006 and late last year, when the plaintiffs formally notified them of their intention to go ahead with the litigation.

They also argued that Framus and its co-claimants were relying on hearsay evidence from witnesses who have refused to voluntarily turn up in court and testify.

In its submissions, Framus pointed out that the defendants themselves waited 18 months before delivering their defence to the claim.

The company also argued that CRH and the others acquiesced in any delay that might have occurred on its part.

Its submissions also show that Seamus Maye, a director of Framus and the other companies, suffered from ill health during the 2006 to 2011 period and has medical certificates to show that this was partly related to stress involved in taking the claim.