The High Court ordered enforcement in Ireland of a Danish arbitration award in favour of Kastrup Trae-Aluvinduet A/S against Aluwood Concepts Ltd., rejecting Aluwood’s challenges to the arbitration agreement and the way the case was conducted.
In a judgment dated 13 November 2009, Mr Justice John MacMenamin held that the parties’ trading arrangements incorporated Kastrup’s common sales and delivery conditions, which referred disputes to Danish arbitration. The court found that Kastrup’s initial quotation and order confirmation in August 2006 referred to those conditions. Aluwood continued trading without objecting, and the judge found it was on notice of the conditions.
The dispute concerned unpaid invoices and Aluwood’s complaints about alleged defects and counter-charges. Kastrup began arbitration in Denmark. Aluwood objected to the Danish-language process and said it could not afford Danish legal representation or a translator. It also challenged the arbitration tribunal’s jurisdiction on the evening before the scheduled hearing.
The court rejected Aluwood’s claim that it had been denied a fair opportunity to defend itself. The judge said Aluwood had received repeated extensions to file a response and had been warned that the arbitration could proceed on Kastrup’s claim alone. He found there was no evidence Aluwood had tried to arrange translations, and concluded its decision not to participate was a choice rather than the result of circumstances beyond its control.
The judge also rejected the complaint that the Danish board failed to consider Aluwood’s counterclaims. He said the award showed that the claims had been considered but were not proven by evidence. The board had allowed two counter-charges accepted by Kastrup, reducing the amount claimed.
The court held the award enforceable under Irish law and concluded that Aluwood had not established any ground for refusing enforcement. It granted the relief sought by Kastrup, including enforcement of the award and judgment for the specified sums and interest. The judgment records Kastrup’s requested principal, costs and interest figures; it does not set out a separate breakdown of the final order.