Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Ltd. v. Dublin Waterworld Ltd. [2005] IEHC 334 (26 September 2005)

Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Ltd. v. Dublin Waterworld Ltd. [2005] IEHC 334 (26 September 2005)

The court held that there was no evidence of misconduct or fundamental error of law by the arbitrator. The arbitrator's decision to disregard the valuer's opinion on open market value and use a formula method was justified given the unique nature of the property and the evidence presented. The arbitrator's incorrect...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 334
Parties
Plaintiff: Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Ltd; Defendant: Dublin Waterworld Ltd
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
26 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Application to Enforce Arbitration Award and Set Aside Application / High Court Judgment on Enforcement and Challenge to Arbitration Award
Outcome
Defendant's application to set aside the arbitration award refused; plaintiff entitled to enforce the award.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Misconduct of Arbitrator, Value Added Tax (vat) on Leases, Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards
Arbitration Commercial Law Tax Law Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Misconduct of Arbitrator Value Added Tax (vat) on Leases Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Ltd

Plaintiff

Dublin Waterworld Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Enforce Arbitration Award and Set Aside Application / High Court Judgment on Enforcement and Challenge to Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator misconducted himself or the proceedings under s.38 of the Arbitration Act, 1954
  2. 2 Whether there was a fundamental error of law on the face of the arbitration award
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's approach to valuation and evidence was unfair or inconsistent

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was no evidence of misconduct or fundamental error of law by the arbitrator. The arbitrator's decision to disregard the valuer's opinion on open market value and use a formula method was justified given the unique nature of the property and the evidence presented. The arbitrator's incorrect statement of law regarding the reviewability of VAT charges was not fundamental and did not affect the outcome. Therefore, there was no basis to set aside the arbitration award.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to set aside the arbitration award refused; plaintiff entitled to enforce the award.

Orders

  • Refusal to set aside arbitration award dated 1 July 2005
  • Leave to enforce arbitration award in the sum of €10,254,600 granted to plaintiff