Snoddy & ors v Mavroudis & anor [2013] IEHC 285 (19 June 2013)

Snoddy & ors v Mavroudis & anor [2013] IEHC 285 (19 June 2013)

The arbitrator acted within his authority by interpreting the contract and determining the entitlement to payment for additional services. The court cannot set aside the award on the ground of excess of jurisdiction as this would amount to second-guessing the arbitrator’s construction of the contract, which is not permitted under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law. No jurisdiction exists to compel interpretation or correction of the award under Article 33.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 285
Parties
Applicants: Sam Snoddy, Tom Snoddy, Fergal Browne and Paul Browne; Respondent: David Mavroudis; Notice Party: David O’Leary
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award / High Court Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Awards, Scope of Arbitral Authority, Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements, Quantum Meruit, Condition Precedent in Contracts
Arbitration Contract Law Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Scope of Arbitral Authority Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements Quantum Meruit Condition Precedent in Contracts

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sam Snoddy, Tom Snoddy, Fergal Browne and Paul Browne

Applicants

David Mavroudis

Respondent

David O’Leary

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award / High Court Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority by awarding fees for additional services not expressly authorised in writing under the contract
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral award should be set aside under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law
  3. 3 Whether the court can compel interpretation or correction of the arbitral award under Article 33 of the Model Law

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator acted within his authority by interpreting the contract and determining the entitlement to payment for additional services. The court cannot set aside the award on the ground of excess of jurisdiction as this would amount to second-guessing the arbitrator’s construction of the contract, which is not permitted under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law. No jurisdiction exists to compel interpretation or correction of the award under Article 33.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Order dismissing the application