The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by tax adviser John Gulliver against an order staying his court action while a dispute over his claimed partnership in a Dublin solicitors’ firm is referred to arbitration.
Mr Gulliver claimed he had become a full equity partner in Matheson Ormsby Prentice before 1 January 2003. The firm’s partners disputed that claim. Their agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21 July 1999, provided for his admission as a full equity partner from that date, subject to conditions. One condition was that at least 75% of the equity partners had not voted against his admission.
The judgment said the partners passed such a resolution on 17 December 2002. Mr Gulliver argued that the condition no longer mattered because he had already been made a partner and had acted in that capacity. The firm maintained that the disagreement had to be referred to arbitration under the agreement.
The High Court had granted the firm’s application to stay the action pending arbitration. Mr Gulliver appealed, arguing that the alleged partnership did not arise under the Memorandum of Understanding and that its arbitration clause therefore did not bind him.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Geoghegan on 19 December 2003, the Supreme Court found the essential dispute was whether Mr Gulliver was a partner. It held that the dispute was “in relation to” the agreement and fell within its arbitration clause. The court also said the dispute would be covered even if the clause had not been incorporated into an amended or substituted partnership agreement, because the parties disagreed over whether his rights and obligations arose from the Memorandum and related documents.
The court dismissed the appeal, leaving the stay in place. It did not determine whether Mr Gulliver was a partner; that dispute was to be resolved through arbitration.