Gulliver v. Brady & Ors [2003] IESC 68 (19 December 2003)

Gulliver v. Brady & Ors [2003] IESC 68 (19 December 2003)

The dispute as to whether the plaintiff is a partner of the respondents arises out of or in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding and falls within the arbitration clause; therefore, the stay of proceedings pending arbitration was correctly granted.

Citation
[2003] IESC 68
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: John Gulliver; Defendants/respondents: George Brady, Anne-Marie Bohan, Brian D. Buggy, Sharon C. Daly, Andrew B. Doyle, Tara M. Doyle, Roderic Ensor, Paul Farrell, Turlough J. Galvin, Garrett P. Gill, Paul Glenfield, Alan G. Graham, Robert Heron, James Hickey, Ruth Hunter, Michael Glynn Irvine, Michael G. Jackson, Neil Keenan, Helen G. Kelly, Don McAleese, Paraic T. Madigan, Stuart Philip Margetson, Edward C. G. Miller, Patrick J. Molloy, Arthur D. S. Moran, Joyce Deirdre Morris, Andrew Muckian, Brid Munnelly, Frank Nowlan, Michael O'Connor, Pauline O'Donovan, Anthony G. O'Grady, Anthony O'Reilly, William P. M. Prentice, Christoper J. Quinn, William A. Quirke, Graham C. Richards, Donal Roche, James Scanlon, Timothy Scanlon, Patrick F. G. Spicer, Patrick Sweetman, Michael W. Tyrrell, Mark Varian, Stanley G. Watson, John Ryan, Anthony Walsh, Bernard Doherty, Catherine Galvin, Greg Lockhart, Frank O'Neill practising under the name and style of Matheson Ormsby Prentice
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Staying Proceedings Pending Arbitration
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clauses, Partnership Disputes, Interpretation of Contracts, Stay of Proceedings
Contract Law Arbitration Law Partnership Law Arbitration Clauses Partnership Disputes Interpretation of Contracts Stay of Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Gulliver

Plaintiff/appellant

George Brady, Anne-Marie Bohan, Brian D. Buggy, Sharon C. Daly, Andrew B. Doyle, Tara M. Doyle, Roderic Ensor, Paul Farrell, Turlough J. Galvin, Garrett P. Gill, Paul Glenfield, Alan G. Graham, Robert Heron, James Hickey, Ruth Hunter, Michael Glynn Irvine, Michael G. Jackson, Neil Keenan, Helen G. Kelly, Don McAleese, Paraic T. Madigan, Stuart Philip Margetson, Edward C. G. Miller, Patrick J. Molloy, Arthur D. S. Moran, Joyce Deirdre Morris, Andrew Muckian, Brid Munnelly, Frank Nowlan, Michael O'Connor, Pauline O'Donovan, Anthony G. O'Grady, Anthony O'Reilly, William P. M. Prentice, Christoper J. Quinn, William A. Quirke, Graham C. Richards, Donal Roche, James Scanlon, Timothy Scanlon, Patrick F. G. Spicer, Patrick Sweetman, Michael W. Tyrrell, Mark Varian, Stanley G. Watson, John Ryan, Anthony Walsh, Bernard Doherty, Catherine Galvin, Greg Lockhart, Frank O'Neill practising under the name and style of Matheson Ormsby Prentice

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Staying Proceedings Pending Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dispute regarding partnership status falls within the arbitration clause of the Memorandum of Understanding
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is bound by the arbitration clause
  3. 3 Whether the High Court was correct to stay proceedings pending arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

The dispute as to whether the plaintiff is a partner of the respondents arises out of or in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding and falls within the arbitration clause; therefore, the stay of proceedings pending arbitration was correctly granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings pending arbitration affirmed