The High Court dismissed Uniform Construction Limited’s challenge to an arbitration award arising from road works on the Limerick Southern Ring Road. The company had asked the court to remit the award to the arbitrator for reconsideration or set it aside. The court refused both forms of relief and dismissed the proceedings.
The dispute followed a subcontract under which Cappawhite Contractors Limited carried out drainage and water mains work for Uniform, the main contractor on a project for Limerick County Council. Cappawhite terminated the subcontract in March 2002, alleging that Uniform had repudiated it. The arbitrator found Cappawhite entitled to terminate, dismissed Uniform’s counterclaim and assessed Cappawhite’s damages at €336,011.37.
Uniform argued that the arbitrator had decided the dispute on a point it had not had a fair opportunity to address: that the way Uniform allocated work, linked to a failure to provide programme information, amounted to a fundamental breach. It sought relief under the Arbitration Act 1954 and the court’s common law jurisdiction, alleging procedural unfairness and legal error.
The judge reviewed the arbitration record, including the parties’ extensive written submissions. She concluded that Cappawhite had argued that several alleged breaches, considered together, entitled it to terminate, and that Uniform had addressed their collective effect in its own submissions. The arbitrator had considered those issues and the evidence. The judge found he had not based liability on a new point that the parties had no opportunity to address. Uniform’s application, she said, sought another opportunity to expand arguments it had already made.
The court also considered a preliminary objection that the arbitrator’s reasons should not be examined because the parties had agreed to an unreasoned award. Whether Uniform had requested reasons was disputed. The judge said the evidence before the court showed no request, and that if so the arbitrator had exceeded his authority by giving reasons. She nevertheless held that the court could examine them to decide whether a proper basis existed to interfere with the award. She rejected the argument that the substantive award could be separated from its reasons.
The judge held that Uniform had shown neither an error of law so fundamental that the award could not stand nor misconduct meeting the required standard of substantial injustice or unfairness. The court dismissed the proceedings; it did not remit or set aside the arbitration award.