The High Court has stayed parts of a dispute over the National Aquatic Centre lease so that a VAT issue can go to arbitration and repair and maintenance disputes can be considered by an expert appointed under the lease. It refused to stay the remaining claims, including rent and insurance rental.
In a judgment delivered on 3 June 2005, Mr Justice Kelly considered an application by Dublin Waterworld Limited to pause proceedings brought by Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Limited. The plaintiff sought possession of the centre after serving a forfeiture notice alleging breaches of the lease.
The judgment records that the plaintiff owns the centre at Abbottstown, County Dublin, and leased it to the defendant for 30 years from 30 April 2003. The defendant had paid no rent since taking occupation, a position the court said was not in dispute. A €761,842 guarantee payment had been transferred to the plaintiff during the hearing, but the court said at least about €300,000 remained admitted as due, in addition to rent then accruing.
The defendant asked the court to stay the case under the Arbitration Act 1980, or under its inherent jurisdiction, relying on lease provisions for arbitration and expert determination. The court held that clause 10 was an arbitration agreement under the Act. Clause 9, which covered repair and maintenance compliance, provided for expert determination and was not an arbitration agreement under the Act, although the court could stay proceedings in its discretion to allow that process.
On rent and insurance rental, the judge found no dispute that would justify a statutory stay and refused to pause those parts of the claim. He found a dispute over liability for VAT on the lease and stayed the proceedings insofar as they sought to rely on or recover that amount, allowing it to be referred to arbitration.
The judge also refused a stay for matters in paragraphs 13 to 17 of the statement of claim, finding no evidence of a dispute for arbitration under clause 10. He noted that management was being carried out by Dublin Waterworld Management Limited rather than the defendant, and that the plaintiff-approved general manager was no longer employed by the defendant.
By contrast, the court found disputes about repair and maintenance obligations and stayed the corresponding claims so the lease’s expert process could be followed. The judgment did not decide the merits of those disputes or the underlying possession claim. The judge said the lease procedures’ time limits should be followed strictly and left the precise order and consequential directions for counsel to address.