The High Court has refused a cladding subcontractor’s application to set aside an arbitration award, remove the arbitrator or appoint a replacement. Mr Justice John MacMenamin found that the subcontractor had not established misconduct, unfair procedure or a basis to remit its claim to the arbitrator.
S.J.W. Facades Ltd had claimed that Bowen Construction Ltd caused delays and disruption during cladding work on student accommodation at Victoria Hall in Cork. In arbitration, S.J.W. sought €406,300 for delay and disruption as part of claims totalling €1,409,109.93. The arbitrator awarded it €59,126.18 overall and allowed a counterclaim by Bowen based on the need to assign labour to complete the works.
S.J.W. argued that the arbitrator relied on 28 letters and other documents without giving it a fair opportunity to challenge them. The High Court found that the documents were already in bundles prepared by S.J.W.’s solicitors under the arbitrator’s directions. The arbitrator had indicated that documents were treated as accurate unless a party disputed their contents. No objection was made to the documents or to the relevant appendices to Bowen’s expert report.
The judge also found that the arbitrator’s references did not show he had simply adopted the expert’s summaries: his quotations were fuller, appeared in a different order, and included documents not cited in the report. The court concluded that the central allegation was unsupported and that the evidence did not show unfairness or that S.J.W. had been placed at a clear disadvantage.
The court rejected S.J.W.’s alternative argument that it was entitled to a finding in its favour because Bowen had not sufficiently challenged its evidence. The judge said that assessing the evidence was for the arbitrator, not a court reviewing an award for misconduct. The arbitrator had concluded that S.J.W. failed to establish the causal link between the alleged employer-responsible events and its claimed losses, which was necessary for its global claim. The High Court found no obligation to assign a value to part of the claim.
The application under section 38 of the Arbitration Act 1954 failed. The judge said the parties remained bound by the award under their arbitration clause. The ruling did not rehear the underlying contract dispute; it decided only whether grounds had been shown to set aside or remit the award or remove the arbitrator.