The High Court has quashed a Circuit Court order refusing to stay a vehicle dispute and refer it to arbitration, finding that the Circuit Court did not apply the required legal test. It sent the application back to the Circuit Court for a fresh determination and extended the stay on the underlying proceedings until that application is decided.
In a judgment delivered on 14 March 2019, Mr Justice Quinn said the Circuit Court’s recorded reason for refusing the application was that the respondent had been without a car for three years. Under Article 8(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, a court must refer a dispute to arbitration if a party requests it in time, unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
The judicial review was brought by Cavanaghs of Charleville Limited and Henry Ford & Son Limited after the Circuit Court refused their application on 26 July 2018. James Fitzpatrick’s Circuit Court claim concerns a new Ford Transit Connect bought from the first applicant in September 2015. He alleges the vehicle was defective, including water leaking through the driver’s door despite repair attempts, and seeks rescission and damages. He said he needed a suitable vehicle to transport a relative with a medical condition.
The judgment records that Fitzpatrick’s solicitors sent a letter commencing arbitration in August 2017. The applicants later accepted one of the proposed arbitrators, but the parties did not agree to move the dispute out of court. The respondent opposed referral, arguing that the arbitration clause had not been brought to his attention and that separate arbitration and court proceedings could cause further delay.
The High Court said the Circuit Court’s brief recorded decision did not find that the arbitration clause met any of the statutory grounds for refusing referral. Nor did it decide who was responsible for delay or whether delay made the clause inoperative. The judge said he could not read such findings into the record. The Circuit Court had therefore failed to address the test it was required to apply and had taken account of the respondent’s lack of a car.
The High Court rejected the argument that the statutory bar on appeals from Article 8(1) stay decisions also barred judicial review. It held that judicial review remained available to examine whether the Circuit Court had acted within its jurisdiction.
However, Mr Justice Quinn declined to order the Circuit Court to refer the dispute to arbitration. He said that would require the High Court to decide the merits of the application itself. The Circuit Court must reconsider it, including the evidence and submissions about whether the clause was brought to Fitzpatrick’s attention and any relevant delay. The High Court’s ruling did not determine whether the dispute will ultimately proceed in court or arbitration.