Stillorgan Orchard Ltd v McLoughlin and Harvey Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1978
• Date: 01 January 1978
• Court: Supreme Court

(H.C.)

(H.C.)

Childers Heights Housing Ltd

and

Molderings

Stillorgan Orchard Ltd

and

McLoughlin and Harvey Ltd

Whether established -Whether objection made to arbitrator's conduct at time of arbitration - Whether parties entitled to complain later - Whether arbitrator took all matters between parties into account - Whether court would exercise discretion to extend leave for appealing to court - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962 (S.I. No. 72), O. 56 r. 4.

Question of law - Refusal of arbitrator to state case - Building contract - Dispute referred to arbitration - Award -Application for an order to set aside award -Arbitrator refusing to state a case - Whether misconduct - Arbitration Act, 1954 (No. 26), ss.35(1), 36(1), 38(1).

The defendants engaged the plaintiff to build a dwelling house for them. Following disputes between the parties certain issues were referred for determination by an arbitrator who paid two visits to the site, on one occasion, at her own request, unaccompanied. The arbitrator made her award, which was taken up by the plaintiff two days later and sent to the defendants. After the defendants indicated their dissatisfaction with the award they sought by notice of motion, an order pursuant to 0.56 r. 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962, extending the time within which they would apply to the court to set aside the award and challenged the award on the ground that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct in that she (a) inspected the premises on her own; (b) did not allow sufficient time to the defendants to make their submissions and (c) did not answer all the questions put to her. The plaintiff claimed an order pursuant to s. 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1954, giving them liberty to enforce the award. Held by Barron J. in granting the plaintiff's claim and making no order on the defendant's motion, 1, when the arbitrator indicated her desire to make the inspection on her own and no objection was made, it was not now open to either party to complain of the manner in which the inspection took place. 2. There was no ground of complaint with regard to the time allowed by the arbitrator to the defendants to make their submissions. 3. The real issue between the parties was the sum ultimately payable by one or other of them and, in relation to which the arbitrator answered all the questions put to her, it was clear that she took all matters in dispute into account. Stillorgan Orchard Ltd v. McLoughlin & Harvey Ltd.DLRM...