Judgment: 2017-09-07 · Court archive

High Court lifts stays on three Mazda claims, leaves one arbitration in place

The court ruled that claims not covered by the arbitration agreement could proceed, while leaving untouched the stay on Ms Maguire’s claim against MSL Park Motors.

High Court · [2017] IEHC 532

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Max Barrett (Judge)
What

The court ruled that claims not covered by the arbitration agreement could proceed, while leaving untouched the stay on Ms Maguire’s claim against MSL Park Motors.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Circuit Court had stayed the proceedings against MSL Park Motors pending arbitration and also stayed the claims against Mazda Motor Ireland pending the arbitration’s outcome. The High Court said the first stay could not be appealed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2010 insofar as it concerned Ms Maguire’s claim against MSL Park Motors. The other stays were appealable because the arbitration agreement did not cover those claims.

The High Court has quashed stays on three claims arising from the purchase of a new Mazda 6, but left in place an order requiring one claim to go to arbitration.

Mr Justice Max Barrett ruled that Mr Maguire’s claims against MSL Park Motors and Mazda Motor Ireland, and Ms Maguire’s claim against Mazda Motor Ireland, could proceed. The court could not hear an appeal against the Circuit Court’s stay of Ms Maguire’s claim against MSL Park Motors pending arbitration, so that part of the order remains unchanged.

The Maguires claimed they bought the new car from MSL Park Motors in August 2013. They said the dealer took their Volvo S40 as a trade-in for €12,000, set against the Mazda’s cost of close to €30,000, and that the new car developed difficulties. They brought proceedings seeking, among other relief, rescission of the contract and damages for alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation and negligence. Mazda Motor Ireland was sued as the car’s producer or manufacturer.

Ms Maguire signed the standard terms and conditions and was the declared owner of the Mazda. Those terms contained an arbitration agreement between her and MSL Park Motors. Mr Maguire was not a party to those terms, and there was no arbitration agreement between Ms Maguire and Mazda Motor Ireland.

The Circuit Court had stayed the proceedings against MSL Park Motors pending arbitration and also stayed the claims against Mazda Motor Ireland pending the arbitration’s outcome. The High Court said the first stay could not be appealed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act 2010 insofar as it concerned Ms Maguire’s claim against MSL Park Motors. The other stays were appealable because the arbitration agreement did not cover those claims.

The judge said factually related claims could be dealt with separately by an arbitrator and the courts, whether at the same time or at different paces. He quashed the Circuit Court order in every appealable respect, allowing the three claims to proceed. The judgment did not determine the underlying allegations about the car or the parties’ liability.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review