On Monday morning, a trial at court focused on a painting firm and its lack of authorisation for roof works.

A man hired the firm for roof works in November 2014 and maintains that the firm failed to accurately do the job.

Upon inquiry at the Chamber of Trades, he discovered that the company did not have an authorisation for such works and was limited to painting houses. He then asked his lawyer to ensure that the firm cease operations temporarily and pay him €26,000 in damages.

His lawyer highlighted that the company was not a construction firm, but a painting firm. In the case of the plaintiff, the firm submitted a bill for a roof renovation without being adequately competent to renovate the roof.

A further issue that the plaintiff's lawyer highlighted is that the firm did not specify that a subsidiary would complete the works and the mother firm would be an intermediary. In doing this, the main firm bypassed the relevant law and did not clarify that the subsidiary would complete the renovation by itself. The lawyer highlighted that the use of the subsidiary was solely to circumvent the law.

The firm's head of accounting and human resources explained that whilst the parent company had received the contract, the works had been carried out by the subsidiary. According to the firm, none of the parent company's employees had taken part in the works. Further to this, the parent company contested that the subsidiary had failed to carry out the renovation correctly.

The firm argued that the plaintiff was seeking to not have to pay for the renovation by any means necessary and had come up with false allegations in the process, to which the firm requested €5,000 in procedural damages. The prosecutor also supported the acquittal of the firm.

The verdict will be proclaimed on 5 March.