Dunnes Stores v McCann & Ors [2020] IESC 1 (22 January 2020)

Dunnes Stores v McCann & Ors [2020] IESC 1 (22 January 2020)

The Supreme Court held that, in the absence of express exclusion, an expert appointed under a contract to resolve disputes is empowered to interpret the contract and decide all issues necessary to resolve the dispute, including questions of law. The court should not intervene in advance to determine legal issues unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as manifest error or the expert acting outside his remit. The Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the proceedings as an abuse of process; the appropriate order was to stay the proceedings pending expert determination.

Citation
[2020] IESC 1
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Dunnes Stores; Defendant/respondent: Paul McCann; Defendant/respondent: Stephen Tennant; Defendant/respondent: Point Village Development Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
22 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Expert Determination, Interpretation of Contracts, Jurisdiction of Experts, Stay of Proceedings, Abuse of Process
Contract Law Alternative Dispute Resolution Expert Determination Interpretation of Contracts Jurisdiction of Experts Stay of Proceedings Abuse of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dunnes Stores

Plaintiff/appellant

Paul McCann

Defendant/respondent

Stephen Tennant

Defendant/respondent

Point Village Development Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an expert appointed under a contract can determine questions of law or contract interpretation
  2. 2 Whether the court should intervene in advance of expert determination to decide legal issues
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss proceedings as an abuse of process rather than merely granting a stay

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that, in the absence of express exclusion, an expert appointed under a contract to resolve disputes is empowered to interpret the contract and decide all issues necessary to resolve the dispute, including questions of law. The court should not intervene in advance to determine legal issues unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as manifest error or the expert acting outside his remit. The Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the proceedings as an abuse of process; the appropriate order was to stay the proceedings pending expert determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Order of the Court of Appeal dismissing the proceedings set aside
  • Proceedings stayed pending expert determination in accordance with the contract