The High Court has refused a contractor extra time to challenge an arbitration award over building work at a property in Kellystown, Slane, and granted the homeowners leave to enforce the awards and enter judgment.
In a judgment delivered on 25 April 2008, Miss Justice Laffoy dismissed James Nevin (Senior)’s application to extend the time to seek to set aside the award. The court also granted David Clancy and Aveen Kehoe the relief they sought under section 41 of the Arbitration Act 1954. The judgment records those orders but does not set out the final judgment entries or a separate order on interest.
The dispute arose from a 2003 building agreement for extensions and alterations to a coach house for conversion into a home. After settlement discussions failed, the matter went to arbitration. The arbitrator’s award, made on 11 July 2007, ordered Nevin to pay Clancy and Kehoe €508,027.36, with further interest at 5% from that date. The arbitrator also directed him to pay the award’s costs of €64,885.16 and the homeowners’ arbitration costs, later assessed at €220,033.34 including VAT.
Nevin argued that the arbitrator’s knowledge of a settlement agreement and his failure to honour it created an appearance of bias. He also alleged that the arbitrator’s handling of the proceedings prevented him from properly presenting his case and that the costs decision breached natural justice. These were grounds advanced in support of setting aside the award; the High Court did not decide a full challenge on those grounds because the extension application failed.
The judge found that the award had been made and published to the parties on 11 July 2007, starting the six-week period for an application to set it aside. Nevin’s first such proceedings were initiated on 1 February 2008, more than six and a half months later. The judge found the delay unreasonable and culpable, said an extension would compound serious prejudice to the homeowners, and concluded Nevin had no good arguable case on the merits.
On the proposed challenge, the judge said the arbitrator had considered the parties’ positions on whether she should continue after learning of the settlement agreement. The award stated that she disregarded the agreement and Nevin’s failure to honour it, apart from discounting a sum paid by the architect. The judge also rejected the allegations about procedural control and costs, finding the arbitrator had acted within her authority and considered the request for a separate costs hearing.
The court dismissed the extension application and granted the homeowners’ applications for leave to enforce the award and enter judgment. The decision addressed the time extension and enforcement applications; it did not grant the contractor’s request to set aside the award.