The High Court has referred Mount Juliet Properties Limited’s disputes with two engineering firms to arbitration, finding that each firm’s standard terms were incorporated into its contract with the developer.
The ruling concerns claims arising from ten homes known as the Walled Garden Lodges, built on the site of Mount Juliet Estate’s former Equestrian Centre in County Kilkenny between 2006 and 2008. Mount Juliet Properties sued four defendants in December 2010, seeking, among other relief, indemnity for claims and losses connected with the homes and damages for alleged negligence, breach of duty and contract, and misrepresentation. Those claims were not determined in this judgment.
The fourth defendant, Hendrick Ryan & Associates Limited, sought referral under Article 8 of the Model Law, relying on a 2004 email stating its engineering services were provided under standard conditions known as Agreement SE 9101. The third defendant, McCarrick Wood Limited trading as McCarrick Wood Consulting Engineers, relied on a 2006 fee proposal referring to Agreement ME 9101. Neither agreement had been signed by the parties, and both contained arbitration clauses.
Mount Juliet Properties disputed that the agreements, particularly their arbitration terms, had become part of its contracts. Its managing director said he had not known of the terms and had never agreed to arbitrate. The company also argued against separate arbitrations and said the third defendant had delayed its application. The court noted that there was no statement of claim in the proceedings.
Justice Laffoy held that each engineering firm had made an offer to provide services on the basis of its identified standard terms, which Mount Juliet Properties accepted through its conduct. The references put the company on notice of the terms and meant it was required to inquire about them, the judge found. She concluded that arbitration agreements existed between the plaintiff and each engineering defendant.
The court also rejected the arguments that the firms were precluded by delay or estoppel from seeking arbitration. Article 8 required referral where an applicable arbitration agreement existed, and the court had no discretion to refuse on the basis of the inconvenience of multiple proceedings. The judge said the court had no jurisdiction to separate the claims relating to the homes involved in two other proceedings from the remaining claims.
The court ordered referral to arbitration of the disputes between Mount Juliet Properties and the third and fourth defendants. The judgment did not decide the underlying liability claims or the disputes involving the other defendants.