The High Court has refused Patrick and Ann Ryan’s application to set aside an arbitral award concerning problems with an Opel Meriva they bought from Kevin O’Leary (Clonmel) Ltd. The court held that the Ryans had not established grounds under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law and that their challenge amounted, in substance, to an attempt to appeal the arbitrator’s decision.
The Ryans bought the 2012 ex-demonstration car in May 2013 for €17,650, including a trade-in. After nearly three years of trouble-free use, it broke down three times in January and February 2016. The Ryans paid to replace the battery and fuel pump. Their engineer attributed the fault to a wiring loom defect; the respondents’ engineer considered it an overheating fuel pump caused by wear and tear. The car had been off the road since February 2016.
The Ryans pursued arbitration against the dealer and General Motors after agreeing to stay Circuit Court proceedings. The arbitrator dismissed their claims. Among his findings, he preferred the respondents’ engineer’s evidence and concluded that the Ryans should have accepted an offer by the respondents to meet 80% of the repair costs. He found that their failure to accept it breached clause 11 of the SIMI terms and conditions and amounted to a failure to mitigate their loss.
In the High Court, the Ryans argued, among other things, that General Motors had been improperly joined, that the arbitrator decided matters outside the submission or failed to decide issues raised, and that the award conflicted with public policy. The respondents resisted the application, saying the Ryans were seeking an impermissible appeal on the facts and law.
Mr Justice David Barniville held that the grounds for setting aside an award are narrow and that the court could not revisit the arbitrator’s conclusions on their merits. The Ryans had named General Motors in their arbitration claim, pursued claims against both respondents, and did not object to its participation until after the award. The judge also found that clause 11 and the repair offer had been raised in the defence and addressed in submissions, so the Ryans had notice of the issue.
The court rejected the public-policy challenge and the allegations that the arbitrator was biased or unfair. It refused to set aside the award. The judge could not direct the respondents to revive the repair offer, but said it would reflect well on them to consider doing so. The judgment made clear that they had no obligation to act on that comment.