The High Court proposed allowing the fourth-named defendant in a dispute over school pitch lighting to serve a notice of indemnity and contribution on the third-named defendant. It adjourned the proceedings for two weeks, however, because an earlier order appeared to stay the entire action and would first need to be varied or replaced.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Barrett on 28 February 2014, concerns proceedings arising from construction of an all-weather pitch at Mount Sackville School in Chapelizod. One of its 15-metre light standards collapsed after construction. Safety concerns then led to the dismantling of the other seven.
The school principal, Louise Marie O’Connor, sued Noel Duffy, trading as the Duffy Gaffney Partnership; Swords Sport and Leisure Limited; and CKP Consultants Limited, trading as Kavanagh Mansfield & Partners. Jetage International Limited, trading as SLS Group, Derryvaraogue, was later joined as a fourth defendant. It was alleged to have some responsibility for the design and erection of works associated with the pitch lighting.
The third defendant had obtained a High Court stay on 20 July 2009 under arbitration law. The judgment said the order’s wording stayed the proceedings without limiting the stay to the dispute between the plaintiff and that defendant. No application to vary or replace it had been made. The judge said the order therefore appeared to stay the whole action, pending the arbitration.
The court also identified unresolved procedural issues. Affidavit evidence gave conflicting accounts of whether the third defendant was CKP Consultants Limited or Piconsult Limited trading as Kavanagh Mansfield & Partners, and whether the latter had formerly been CKP. The judge directed that an affidavit correctly identifying the third defendant be filed within two weeks and that counsel identify any order sought to correct the record. The court also required a copy of the order joining Jetage as a defendant, which it had not seen.
On the contribution issue, the judge said the balance of justice would generally favour a co-defendant that was not party to the arbitration agreement, where the stay could cause it significant unfairness. A party seeking a stay could raise contribution and indemnity arrangements and involve other defendants in that application.
The court did not make a final order permitting service at this stage. It said the earlier stay must first be varied or substituted, and adjourned the proceedings for two weeks to allow the parties to consider applications and provide the required documents. The parties were given liberty to apply.