IELCA 1 - Go Code Ltd. -v- Capita Business Services Ltd

• Year: 2018
• Decision Date: 23 February 2018

1

[2018] IELCA 1

THE HIGH COURT 2014 5017 P

BETWEEN GO CODE LIMITED PLAINTIFF

AND

CAPITA BUSINESS SERVICES LIMITED DEFENDANT

RULING ON DEFENDANT’S COSTS OF APPLICATION FOR ORDER STAYING THE

PROCEEDINGS AND TAXED PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED 27 OCTOBER 2015

1. The Plaintiff’s Plenary Summons was issued on 9 June 2014, claiming against the Defendant an

Order for specific performance of an alleged agreement between the Plaintiff and the

Defendant entitling the Plaintiff to 10% of the gross turnover of the Postcode Management

Licence Holder Agreement between the Defendant and the Department of Communications

Energy and Natural Resources.

2. In addition the Plaintiff claimed specific performance of the alleged agreement entitling the

Plaintiff to the benefit of a service agreement consequent upon the grant to the Defendant of a

Postcode Management Licence Holder Agreement by the Department of Communications

Energy and Natural Resources or in the alternative damages in lieu of specific performance.

3. The Defendant’s solicitors entered an appearance on its behalf on 18 February 2014. The

Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim is dated 18 December 2015.

4. By Notice of Motion dated 24 February 2015 and grounded upon the Affidavit of Thomas

O’Dwyer Solicitor, the Defendant sought relief by way of an Order pursuant to s.6 of the

Arbitration Act, 2010 and/or Article 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Commercial Arbitration

staying the proceedings in circumstances where the matters complained of by the Plaintiff

were said to fall to be determined by way of Arbitration.

5. The Plaintiff through its Director Mr. Alex Pigot caused a replying Affidavit to be filed which

disputed the entitlement of the Defendant to the claimed relief on a number of grounds as set

forth therein and also provided 6 exhibits in support. An exchange of substantial Affidavits

ensued between the parties. In all, there were 4 Affidavits on behalf of the Defendant and

three on behalf of the Plaintiff. Extensive documentation was cited by way of exhibits to the

respective Affidavits.

6. In essence it was the Plaintiff’s case, in opposition to the Defendant’s application that-:

a. Whilst an Arbitration clause was contained in the Teaming Agreement, such clause did not

capture the dispute which had arisen between the parties concerning the alleged liability of