Feanmer Developments Ltd -v- L&M Keating Ltd & Ors [2014] IEHC 295 (04 June 2014)

Feanmer Developments Ltd -v- L&M Keating Ltd & Ors [2014] IEHC 295 (04 June 2014)

The existence of multiple defendants and interlinked claims does not render the arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and first defendant incapable of being performed. The arbitration clause stands as a separate agreement, and the court is bound to refer the dispute to arbitration in the absence of a finding that the agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. Practical inconvenience or complexity is not a sufficient basis to refuse referral under Article 8.

Citation
[2014] IEHC 295
Parties
Plaintiff: Franmer Developments Limited; First Defendant: L&M Keating Limited; Second Defendant: Neil Bennett trading as Neil Bennett Associates; Third Defendant: Aiden G. Walsh; Fourth Defendant: Patrick J. Ryan; Fifth Defendant: Brendan O'Mara; Sixth Defendant: Derry Scully; Seventh Defendant: Gerard Campbell trading as Bruce Shaw Partnership; Eighth Defendant: Hynes Fitzgerald Architectural Windows Systems Limited; Ninth Defendant: Malachy Walsh and Company Limited trading as Malachy Walsh and Partners
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay Pending Arbitration / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Arbitration Agreement, Multiplicity of Parties, Interpretation of Model Law Article 8
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Stay of Proceedings Arbitration Agreement Multiplicity of Parties Interpretation of Model Law Article 8

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Franmer Developments Limited

Plaintiff

L&M Keating Limited

First Defendant

Neil Bennett trading as Neil Bennett Associates

Second Defendant

Aiden G. Walsh

Third Defendant

Patrick J. Ryan

Fourth Defendant

Brendan O'Mara

Fifth Defendant

Derry Scully

Sixth Defendant

Gerard Campbell trading as Bruce Shaw Partnership

Seventh Defendant

Hynes Fitzgerald Architectural Windows Systems Limited

Eighth Defendant

Malachy Walsh and Company Limited trading as Malachy Walsh and Partners

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay Pending Arbitration / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be stayed and dispute referred to arbitration under s.6 Arbitration Act 2010 and Article 8 UNCITRAL Model Law
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed due to multiplicity of parties and interlinked claims

Ratio Decidendi

The existence of multiple defendants and interlinked claims does not render the arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and first defendant incapable of being performed. The arbitration clause stands as a separate agreement, and the court is bound to refer the dispute to arbitration in the absence of a finding that the agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. Practical inconvenience or complexity is not a sufficient basis to refuse referral under Article 8.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings as between plaintiff and first defendant pending arbitration
  • Referral of dispute between plaintiff and first defendant to arbitration in accordance with clause 38(b) of the contract and Article 8 of the Model Law