Jackson Way Properties Ltd v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (Unapproved) [2026] IECA 11 (11 February 2026)

Jackson Way Properties Ltd v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (Unapproved) [2026] IECA 11 (11 February 2026)

The Court refused to order part payment of the arbitral award because the appellant had not proved the unencumbered title on which the award was based, and the enforceability of the award as a whole remains in dispute due to the effect of the restrictive covenant. There is no discrete, indisputably due sum specified in the award that could be paid out. The test for a mandatory interlocutory injunction was not strictly applicable, but even under the summary judgment standard, the respondent had an arguable defence. The jurisdiction to order part payment of an arbitral award in these circumstances was left open for a case where it squarely arises on the facts.

Citation
[2026] IECA 11
Parties
Appellant: Jackson Way Properties Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal to Order Part Payment of Arbitral Award
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Acquisition, Restrictive Covenants, Arbitral Award Enforcement, Interlocutory Relief, Title to Land, Compensation for Compulsory Purchase
Property Law Arbitration Constitutional Law Compulsory Acquisition Restrictive Covenants Arbitral Award Enforcement Interlocutory Relief Title to Land +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jackson Way Properties Ltd

Appellant

Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Refusal to Order Part Payment of Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to order part payment of an arbitral award where the underlying title is disputed
  2. 2 Whether the test for a mandatory interlocutory injunction applies to an application for part payment of an arbitral award
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is entitled to any payment on foot of the award given the unresolved title issue

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to order part payment of the arbitral award because the appellant had not proved the unencumbered title on which the award was based, and the enforceability of the award as a whole remains in dispute due to the effect of the restrictive covenant. There is no discrete, indisputably due sum specified in the award that could be paid out. The test for a mandatory interlocutory injunction was not strictly applicable, but even under the summary judgment standard, the respondent had an arguable defence. The jurisdiction to order part payment of an arbitral award in these circumstances was left open for a case where it squarely arises on the facts.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order for part payment of the arbitral award.