Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Expert determination of construction dispute should have been allowed to proceed
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court dismisses appeal from Court of Appeal, and affirms order striking out proceedings on appeal from the High Court - where the original application had been for a stay on a reference to an independent architect for resolution of a construction dispute - on the grounds that: (a) reference to an independent expert was not the same as arbitration; (b) the reference to an independent expert was governed by the terms of the relevant contract; (c) the independent expert was entitled to determine matters of law if that was contemplated by the contractual terms; (d) the courts could only intervene if the independent expert stepped outside the terms of his remit; and (e) in the instant case, the independent expert should have been allowed to proceed with his function.
Dunne J (nem diss): Resolution of dispute - reference to independent expert - whether expert could decide questions of law - application for a stay - stay refused in High Court - appeal to Court of Appeal - order dismissing proceedings as an abuse of process - 2008 contract - agreement for a lease by an anchor tenant of a new development - payment of €46 million by tenant - development not completed - dispute - settlement agreement - clause requiring release of €3 million by tenant on receipt of completion certificate - certificate produced in 2013 - refusal to release €3 million - further certificate - dispute resolution clause - whether development met required standard - whether independent expert competent to rule on question - comparison between expert determination and arbitration - principles concerning expert determination - whether independent architect to act as expert rather than arbitrator - whether proceedings premature - whether proceedings were an abuse of process.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
