Galway City Council -v- Samuel Kingston Construction Ltd & anor [2010] IESC 18 (25 March 2010)

Galway City Council -v- Samuel Kingston Construction Ltd & anor [2010] IESC 18 (25 March 2010)

The arbitrator's exclusion of relevant expert evidence on delay, without a proper determination of admissibility and on an erroneous basis, constituted misconduct amounting to a substantial procedural unfairness. This misconduct was so fundamental that the arbitral award could not be allowed to stand and must be set aside.

Citation
[2010] IESC 18
Parties
Plaintiff: Galway City Council; First Named Defendant: Samuel Kingston Construction Ltd; Second Named Defendant (arbitrator): Mr Geoffrey F Hawker
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court Decision on Arbitral Award (arbitration Acts 1954 1998) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; arbitral award set aside; new arbitrator to be appointed if parties wish to proceed.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Awards, Misconduct of Arbitrator, Error of Law on the Face of the Record, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration, Repudiatory Breach of Contract
Arbitration Contract Law Civil Procedure Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Misconduct of Arbitrator Error of Law on the Face of the Record Procedural Fairness in Arbitration Repudiatory Breach of Contract

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Galway City Council

Plaintiff

Samuel Kingston Construction Ltd

First Named Defendant

Mr Geoffrey F Hawker

Second Named Defendant (arbitrator)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court Decision on Arbitral Award (arbitration Acts 1954 1998) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's exclusion of expert evidence constituted misconduct justifying setting aside the award
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's findings on repudiatory breach were legally correct
  3. 3 Whether the High Court applied the correct standard of review to arbitral awards

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator's exclusion of relevant expert evidence on delay, without a proper determination of admissibility and on an erroneous basis, constituted misconduct amounting to a substantial procedural unfairness. This misconduct was so fundamental that the arbitral award could not be allowed to stand and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; arbitral award set aside; new arbitrator to be appointed if parties wish to proceed.

Orders

  • Arbitral award set aside for misconduct.
  • Matter not remitted to the same arbitrator; new arbitrator to be appointed if parties wish to proceed.