The High Court has refused an application by Fergus Hoban to set aside an arbitral award arising from guarantees connected to two commercial leases at Blackrock Hall in Blackrock, Co. Cork.
Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern delivered judgment on 12 May 2017. The application challenged the award under the Arbitration Act 2010 and the UNCITRAL Model Law, arguing that Hoban had not received proper notice or been able to present his case, and that the award did not give adequate reasons.
The dispute concerned premises owned by respondents Kieran Coughlan and Claire Riordan. Two companies connected with Hoban entered into 35-year leases in 2012, and Hoban had given a personal guarantee covering liabilities under the leases. The respondents sought €400,049.42 from him in January 2015, said to be due under that guarantee.
The judgment recounts repeated attempts by the arbitrator to contact Hoban and his solicitors between 2015 and 2016. Hoban did not respond to several letters, and no defence was delivered despite an extension. His solicitor sought an adjournment on the eve of the 1 September 2016 hearing. The respondents did not agree, and the arbitrator proceeded. The court noted that no formal adjournment application was made to the arbitrator in the respondents’ presence.
On notice and participation, the judge found Hoban had been properly notified of the arbitrator’s appointment and the hearing, and had opportunities to take part. The court said the arbitrator was entitled to proceed after the applicant’s prolonged lack of meaningful engagement. It rejected the challenge under Article 34(2)(a)(ii).
The judge also rejected the argument that the award lacked reasons. The award recorded evidence about the documents, arrears and other liabilities, and set out the sums claimed under different headings. It found Hoban liable under the written guarantee, subject to a five-year limit, while refusing to allow fees and expenses from examinership proceedings relating to BHL Pharmacy Limited. The judge considered the award sufficiently reasoned under Article 31(2), and refused relief under Article 34(2)(a)(iv).
The application to set aside the award was refused on both grounds. The judgment does not set out the award’s total amount.