The High Court has referred Michael Flatley’s dispute with insurer Hiscox over an insurance claim for damage to his home and alternative accommodation to arbitration. The court rejected Flatley’s arguments that the policy’s arbitration clause was unfair or lacked transparency. It did not decide whether Hiscox must cover the claims.
Mr Justice Twomey delivered the judgment on 14 June 2024 after Hiscox applied to stay Flatley’s court proceedings and refer the dispute to arbitration under the policy. The court held that the dispute fell within the clause, which provides for disputes relating to the insurance to be heard by a single arbitrator in Dublin under the Arbitration Act then in force.
The underlying claim concerns allegedly defective work at Castlehyde, Flatley’s home in County Cork. He sought €30 million from Hiscox, and his court proceedings also sought cover for property damage and alternative accommodation. Flatley’s pleadings referred to claims under the 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 policy renewals. The judge said an arbitrator would decide which renewal, or renewals, applied and whether the claims were covered.
Flatley argued that the arbitration clause was unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2022 because it did not say he would not have to pay his own arbitration costs. The judge rejected that reading of the Act. The clause said nothing about costs, so it did not require Flatley to pay his own costs, as the provision on which he relied required for it to be unfair. The judgment did not determine what costs would be payable in an arbitration.
The judge also rejected arguments that the clause required arbitration not governed by law, was insufficiently transparent or clear, or was unfair because Hiscox had acted in bad faith by terminating the policy. He found no evidence that the arbitration would not be governed by law, and said the clause clearly referred disputes to arbitration. The policyholder’s personal lack of awareness did not establish unfairness, given the evidence concerning his broker, AON.
The court referred the dispute to arbitration. It did not decide the merits of the insurance claim or which renewal covered each part of it. The case was provisionally listed for mention a week after judgment to address any final orders and costs, with liberty for the parties to notify the registrar if that listing was unnecessary.