Furey & anor v Lurganville Construction Company Ltd & ors [2012] IESC 38 (21 June 2012)

Furey & anor v Lurganville Construction Company Ltd & ors [2012] IESC 38 (21 June 2012)

Lurgan-ville did not take a step in the proceedings within the meaning of s.5 of the Arbitration Act, 1980, as the agreement for an extension of time and costs did not engage with the merits or incur additional costs; no estoppel arose as there was no clear representation not to rely on the arbitration clause; and the court had no discretion to refuse a stay on grounds of multiplicity. The High Court was correct to stay the proceedings pending arbitration.

Citation
[2012] IESC 38
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: John Furey; Plaintiff/appellant: Lucy Furey; Defendant/respondent: Lurgan-ville Construction Company Limited; Defendant/respondent: Patrick Duff; Defendant/respondent: David J. O'Daly
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order Staying Proceedings Pending Arbitration
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Arbitration Agreements, Estoppel, Procedural Steps in Litigation
Civil Procedure Arbitration Stay of Proceedings Arbitration Agreements Estoppel Procedural Steps in Litigation

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Furey

Plaintiff/appellant

Lucy Furey

Plaintiff/appellant

Lurgan-ville Construction Company Limited

Defendant/respondent

Patrick Duff

Defendant/respondent

David J. O'Daly

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant took a 'step' in the proceedings within the meaning of s.5 of the Arbitration Act, 1980, thereby losing the right to seek a stay pending arbitration
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is estopped by conduct from relying on the arbitration clause
  3. 3 Whether the risk of multiplicity of proceedings justifies refusing a stay

Ratio Decidendi

Lurgan-ville did not take a step in the proceedings within the meaning of s.5 of the Arbitration Act, 1980, as the agreement for an extension of time and costs did not engage with the merits or incur additional costs; no estoppel arose as there was no clear representation not to rely on the arbitration clause; and the court had no discretion to refuse a stay on grounds of multiplicity. The High Court was correct to stay the proceedings pending arbitration.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court order staying proceedings against Lurgan-ville Construction Company Limited pending arbitration affirmed