Geraghty v Rohan Industrial Estates Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: HEDERMAN J.
• Judgment Date: 19 July 1988
• Neutral Citation: 1988 WJSC-SC 1113
• Date: 19 July 1988
• Docket Number: (199/87),[1981 No. 1566P: 1984 No. 616 Sp]

GERAGHTY v. ROHAN INDUSTRIAL ESTATES LTD

IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACTS 1954 AND 1980

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

BETWEEN ROHAN INDUSTRIAL ESTATES LIMITED APPLICANT

AND MALACHY GERAGHTY RESPONDENT

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION AWARD

MADE ON THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 1984

BETWEEN:

MALACHY GERAGHTY

Plaintiff/Respondent

and

ROHAN INDUSTRIAL ESTATES LIMITED

Defendant/Appellant

1988 WJSC-SC 1113

(199/87)

THE SUPREME COURT

Synopsis:

ARBITRATION

Award

Setting aside - Error of law - Fairness of procedures - Registered land - Sale - Acreage of holding - Misdescription - Compensation - Folio map altered without corresponding amendment of acreage stated on folio - The plaintiff sold to the defendants the lands comprised in two folios of the register of freeholders for the county of Dublin at a price of #2,026,000 - The contract of sale incorporated the Law Society's General Conditions of Sale (1976: private treaty) - The total area stated in the folios was 54.804 acres and that acreage was stated in the contract of sale to be the acreage of the property for sale - The defendant purchasers complained that the plaintiff vendor had made title to lands which were 2.104 acres less than the acreage stated in the contract of sale - The dispute was referred to arbitration and the reference was heard by the arbitrator on an initial occasion and was then adjourned to a subsequent occasion - The arbitrator, in making his award, decided that the plaintiff had contracted to sell 54.804 acres of land, that the plaintiff had shown title to all that area save 2.104 acres, that the deficiency materially affected the description of the property for sale within the meaning of clause 21(1) of the said General Conditions, that the defendants were entitled to compensation for that deficiency, and that the compensation payable to the defendants for that deficiency was #77,781 - The plaintiff then applied to the High Court pursuant to s. 38 of the Act of 1954 for an order setting aside the award first on the grounds that the plaintiff had not been given an opportunity (a) to controvert the defendants" contention that the deficiency materially affected the description of the property or (b) to make submissions in relation to the manner in which the compensation was to be assessed and, secondly, on the ground that the award disclosed an error of law on its face in accepting that the plaintiff had not made title to the entire of the property for sale - At the initial hearing of the plaintiff's application, to which the arbitrator and the defendants were respondents, the trial judge accepted that there had been a lack of fair procedures amounting to misconduct of the hearing of the reference and held (6/10/86) that the award should be set aside on that ground; the judge, in the absence of the Registrar of Titles, declined to condemn the acts of the officials of the Land Registry in purporting to abstract from the plaintiff's folios and to add to other folios small areas which accounted for the deficiency found by the arbitrator - The plaintiff's application was relisted for a further hearing at which the Registrar of Titles was represented by counsel - It then appeared that officials of the Land Registry had removed small areas from the maps of the plaintiff's folios and had included those areas in the maps of other folios but had done so without adjusting the acreages recorded on the plaintiff's folios or informing him of the reductions - The trial judge held (16/3/87 - sub. nom. ~Geraghty v. Buckley~) that the changes made to the maps of the plaintiff's folios by such officials had not effected a transfer of any part of the plaintiff's folios and that accordingly, the arbitrator's award bore an error of law on its face by purporting to give effect to such reductions of the acreages comprised in the plaintiff's folios - The defendants appealed against the orders made by the High Court in determining the plaintiff's application to have the arbitrators" award set aside - Held, in allowing the appeal, that there was no reality in the plaintiff's complaint that he had not expected the arbitrator to make his award after the resumed hearing of the reference and that the plaintiff had been deprived of opportunities to dispute the contention that the deficiency materially affected the description of the property or to suggest other methods of assessing the compensation - Arbitration Act, 1954, s. 38 - (199/87 - Supreme Court - 19/7/88) 1989 IR 419

|Geraghty v. Rohan Industrial Estates|

Citations:

ARBITRATION ACT 1954 S38

GERAGHTY V BUCKLEY UNREP CARROLL 1986/6/592

GERAGHTY V BUCKLEY UNREP CARROLL 1987/3/666

1 JUDGEMENT delivered on the 19th day of July 1988 by HEDERMAN J.[Nem Diss]

2 This appeal is against the findings of the High Court

3 (a) That there was an error of law on the face of the arbitrator's award and that the matter should be remitted to the arbitrator for a finding in the light of the question of law as determined by the Court.

4 (b) That the arbitrator had been guilty of misconduct of the arbitration within the meaning of s. 38 of the Arbitration Act, 1954, and that the matter should be remitted to the arbitrator to hear such evidence and submissions as might be tendered and advanced in relation to the materiality of the shortfall in acreage and/or the amount of compensation to be paid in respect thereof and to find accordingly.

5 In 1978 Mr. Geraghty was registered as the owner of two parcels of land being described in Folio 754 and Folio 882 of the Register of Freeholders, Co. Dublin. The Folios stated the area of each parcel to be 7 acres 3 roods and 21¾ perches statute measure, and 46 acres 3 roods and 27 perches statute measure respectively, making a total area of 54 acres 3 roods and 8¾ perches or 54.884 acres.

6 Rohans agreed to buy the lands described in these Folios for the sum of £2,026,000 payable as to £10,000 as deposit on the execution of a deed of the 31st March 1978 and subject to satisfactory title being shown, £490,000 within three months and the residue not later than the 31st May 1999. Upon payment of the £490,000, 16 acres were to be transferred, the land to be chosen by the purchaser. Further sites...