The Supreme Court has upheld a decision to pause property sale proceedings brought by Declan O'Dwyer and Julia Jones-O'Dwyer while a dispute over land containing a large slurry tank is sent to arbitration.
The purchasers entered a contract with Robin Boyd on 21 August 1998. The sale was due to complete on 30 November that year but did not do so, mainly because Mr Boyd said he could not give vacant possession or title to a small area containing a slurry tank with capacity for about 400 tons.
Mr Boyd maintained that he did not own that area and that its inclusion in the contract was an error. The purchasers disputed that position and sought specific performance, meaning a court order requiring completion of the contract. Their claim also included an alternative request for completion with a reduction in the purchase price if necessary.
The contract incorporated standard Law Society conditions. Condition 33 dealt with errors or discrepancies in a sale, while Condition 51 required disputes about Condition 33 — including whether it applied at all — to go to arbitration.
Mr Justice Geoghegan held that this wording was decisive. Even though the purchasers denied there had been any error, the contract itself required that dispute to be decided by an arbitrator first. The court proceedings did not disappear; they were simply stayed pending that determination.
The purchasers also argued that Mr Boyd had lost his right to seek arbitration because he had already taken a procedural step in the High Court proceedings. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. His earlier request for an adjournment of their motion for judgment was described as a neutral holding measure, particularly as the possibility of arbitration had already been raised.
The appeal was therefore dismissed. If the arbitrator finds that Condition 33 does not apply, the stay may be lifted and the specific performance proceedings can continue. If an error is established, the arbitrator may determine an appropriate reduction in the purchase price.