The High Court refused Galway City Council’s application to set aside or remit an arbitration award concerning the redevelopment of Eyre Square, Galway. The challenge concerned the arbitrator’s liability award in a dispute with Samuel Kingston Construction Limited (SKC), which had contracted to carry out construction works for the council.
The dispute arose after delays affected the project and the parties made an unwritten Acceleration Agreement in March 2005. The arbitrator found that the council wrongfully withdrew sums paid under that agreement in June 2005, repudiating it. He also found that SKC’s subsequent withdrawal from the site breached the original contract, but was not a fundamental breach or repudiation. The arbitrator further found the council’s conduct unreasonable under the contract’s clause 63(6).
The council argued that the arbitrator had committed serious errors, including deciding the reasonableness issue without proper submissions, mishandling evidence about SKC’s financial position, and wrongly assessing delay, “Muck-Away” costs and repudiation. It also sought the arbitrator’s removal, citing occasions when he fell asleep during the hearing and unilateral contacts with the parties.
Mr Justice McMahon rejected the council’s grounds for setting aside or remitting the award. He held that the reasonableness issue had been pleaded and addressed in submissions, and that the court should not intervene merely because the council disputed the arbitrator’s assessment of evidence. On delay, he accepted that the arbitrator’s reasoning about the council’s expert was mistaken, but found no basis to remit the award. He also declined to interfere with the arbitrator’s findings on “Muck-Away” and the parties’ conduct under the original contract and the Acceleration Agreement.
The judge addressed the removal arguments in the judgment. He described the arbitrator falling asleep during the hearing as a serious matter, but said he was not convinced it would be just to replace him, considering the circumstances, costs and delay. He also rejected removal over the contacts, finding that they did not justify disqualification in this case.
The court’s stated conclusion was that it refused to remit or set aside any part of the award. The judgment describes removal as a separate application but does not state a distinct operative order on that request. The award concerned liability; the arbitration had been arranged in stages, with quantum to be heard separately.