The High Court has refused Patrick Corrigan’s challenge to an arbitration award requiring him to pay Michael Thomas Durkan and Patrick Durkan €3 million over land in Louisburgh, Co Mayo. It also refused to extend the time for his challenge and gave the respondents liberty to enforce the award.
The dispute arose from a licence agreement dated 21 December 2006 concerning approximately eight acres. Corrigan intended to develop housing on the land. Planning permission was refused by An Bord Pleanála after an appeal by the Western Regional Fisheries Board. The central dispute in the arbitration was whether the €3 million remained payable despite the absence of planning permission.
The arbitrator, solicitor Patrick O’Connor, issued an award dated 17 December 2009 directing Corrigan to pay the respondents €3 million. Corrigan sought to have the award remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration, particularly on the interpretation of clause 4.1. He also sought an extension of time to bring an application to remit or set aside the award. The respondents applied for liberty to enforce it.
Corrigan argued that the arbitrator mishandled evidence from planning consultant Adrian Kearney, including material based on discussions with third parties, and failed to interpret clause 4.1. The judge found that the arbitrator had considered Kearney’s evidence and was entitled to assess its weight, including its reliance on matters outside the witness’s first-hand knowledge. The judgment noted that the arbitrator’s directions allowed the arbitration to proceed without strict application of the hearsay rule.
The judge also rejected the claim that the arbitrator had failed to interpret the agreement. Although the award did not set out a separate construction of clause 4.1, the judge concluded from the award as a whole that the arbitrator had addressed the parties’ rights and determined that the agreement was not conditional on planning permission. The judge described the challenge as an attempt to appeal an outcome with which Corrigan was dissatisfied, and found no basis to remit or set aside the award.
The application to challenge the award was made outside the six-week period running from publication to the parties. The judge considered the merits and the other circumstances and refused to extend time. The operative order granted the respondents liberty to enforce the award. The judgment does not state that the court separately made an order setting the award aside or remitting it.