McCarrick v. The Gaiety (Sligo) Ltd. [2001] IEHC 56; [2001] 2 IR 266; [2002] 1 ILRM 55 (2nd April, 2001)

McCarrick v. The Gaiety (Sligo) Ltd. [2001] IEHC 56; [2001] 2 IR 266; [2002] 1 ILRM 55 (2nd April, 2001)

The court held that the applicant/lessee's failure to submit evidence was a procedural mishap, not a deliberate decision, and that the resulting lack of a fair hearing justified remitting the matter to the arbitrator under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1954, subject to strict terms as to costs.

Citation
[2002] 1 ILRM 55
Parties
Applicant/lessee: Catherine McCarrick; Respondent/lessor: The Gaiety (Sligo) Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Special Summons (arbitration) / Application to Remit Arbitration Award to Arbitrator Under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1954
Outcome
Matter remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration subject to terms.
Legal Topics
Remission of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration, Rent Review, Discretion of Court Under Arbitration Act
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Remission of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness in Arbitration Rent Review Discretion of Court Under Arbitration Act

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine McCarrick

Applicant/lessee

The Gaiety (Sligo) Limited

Respondent/lessor

Procedural Posture

Special Summons (arbitration) / Application to Remit Arbitration Award to Arbitrator Under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1954

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should remit an arbitration award for reconsideration due to procedural mishap resulting in one party's submissions not being considered
  2. 2 Scope of the court's discretion under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1954

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant/lessee's failure to submit evidence was a procedural mishap, not a deliberate decision, and that the resulting lack of a fair hearing justified remitting the matter to the arbitrator under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1954, subject to strict terms as to costs.

Court Disposition

Matter remitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration subject to terms.

Orders

  • Applicant/Lessee to reimburse Respondent/Lessor the sum of £1,094.69 for the arbitrator’s fee for the award of 1 August 2000, or so much thereof as has not already been paid.
  • Applicant/Lessee to pay the costs of the Respondent/Lessor in and about the remission.