The High Court has refused a developer’s request to end an arbitration over a housing project dispute, despite an admitted forged concrete invoice. Mr Justice Gilligan ruled on 28 June 2006 that the dispute should remain with the appointed arbitrator, Anthony Reddy.
Greyridge Developments Limited and building contractor Laurence McGuigan, trading as McGuigan Construction, had entered into two contracts in March 2000 for building works at a housing development in Carrick on Shannon, County Leitrim. Their contracts required disputes to be referred to arbitration. The dispute, which began during the works, concerned sums allegedly due and the time taken to perform the contracts.
The contractor claimed €525,623 in the arbitration. The developer, which had paid €711,850 under architect’s certificates, counterclaimed for losses including the cost of completing works and roads, remedial work and defects. The arbitrator had been appointed in 2001. Although pleadings and documents had been exchanged and hearing dates set, no hearing had taken place by the time of the High Court application.
The developer sought an order ending the arbitration agreement on the ground that the contractor had committed fraud. The central allegation concerned a purported Kreaney Concrete invoice dated 2 May 2000. The judgment records that the contractor admitted the invoice was forged and that he had not bought concrete for the site from Mr Kreaney. He denied that he had committed fraud, maintaining that his claim for payment reflected the quantity of concrete delivered and poured.
The developer also challenged invoices for labour from PT McWilliams Contracts and Colum McMahon. The judge said the developer had raised serious credibility issues about them. The developer argued that missing documentation, the forged invoice and a claimed public interest in the allegations made arbitration unsuitable. The contractor submitted that the disputed invoices formed a small part of his overall claim and that the arbitrator had authority to decide the issues.
Mr Justice Gilligan accepted that the fraud allegations were made bona fide, but found the case was a standard money dispute between a developer and contractor, not one of great complexity or difficult legal questions. He said the appointed arbitrator was experienced in such matters and could draw appropriate inferences from the admitted forgery. The judge also noted that the disputed invoices were not significant in the context of the overall claim, and that no specific fraud allegation had been made about a separate claim of around €300,000 said to lack supporting documentation.
The judge found no public interest reason requiring a plenary hearing. Ending the arbitration, already under way for about five years, would add substantial cost and delay. He therefore refused the relief sought. The judgment did not determine the contractor’s claim, the developer’s counterclaim or whether any fraud had been committed beyond recording the invoice admission; those issues remained for the arbitration.