The High Court has refused John and Ann Hickey’s application to set aside or remit an arbitration award of €101,202.07 in favour of Mary Delargy. The court has yet to decide Delargy’s separate request for judgment and enforcement; it said it would hear submissions on those matters.
The dispute arose from a 2008 agreement under which the Hickeys were to sell Delargy a site at Garrai Glass, Ballydavid South, Athenry, and build a crèche for €550,000 including VAT. A separate 2009 deed required the respondents to rectify qualifying major defects, while limiting liability for consequential or incidental loss. Delargy alleged construction defects, including insulation problems and dampness. The respondents denied liability and disputed the alleged defects.
The parties agreed to arbitration. After the respondents failed to comply with a discovery order, the arbitrator struck out their defence in March 2014. An interim award the following month said Delargy could recover sums to be assessed and invited written submissions on the amount. In October 2014, the arbitrator awarded €101,202.07: €29,673.33 in damages, €24,130 in loss of earnings, €1,680.07 in interest and €45,718.67 in costs.
The respondents argued that the award went beyond the arbitration’s scope, breached procedural fairness and gave insufficient reasons. They said the deed excluded consequential losses and that they had not had a chance to address the applicant’s submissions on the amount or costs. The High Court considered their application under the grounds in the UNCITRAL Model Law, including whether the award exceeded the arbitration mandate.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan found that the respondents had withdrawn from the arbitration after their defence was struck out, despite being aware of the arbitrator’s intended course. The judge accepted that the arbitrator could have given fuller reasons, but held that the circumstances did not justify setting aside or remitting the award. The court also rejected reliance on an alleged July 2014 letter seeking the applicant’s submissions: it found, on the balance of probabilities, that the arbitrator had not received it.
The court refused the respondents’ requested relief. It did not rule at this stage on whether to enter judgment for Delargy or permit enforcement of the award.