Collis Lee v. Millar [2004] IEHC 144 (30 July 2004)

Collis Lee v. Millar [2004] IEHC 144 (30 July 2004)

Mr. O'Brien did not act as an arbitrator but as an expert; he did not conduct a process required of an arbitrator, and his letter of 17 December 2003 is not an enforceable arbitration award under the Arbitration Act 1954.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 144
Parties
Applicant: Marie Collis Lee; Respondent: Hugh Millar
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Special Summons Under Arbitration Acts / Judgment on Application to Enforce Alleged Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Role of Arbitrator Vs Expert, Share Valuation on Death of Shareholder, Interpretation of Articles of Association
Arbitration Company Law Succession Law Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Role of Arbitrator Vs Expert Share Valuation on Death of Shareholder Interpretation of Articles of Association

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

Parties

Marie Collis Lee

Applicant

Hugh Millar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Summons Under Arbitration Acts / Judgment on Application to Enforce Alleged Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter of 17 December 2003 constituted an enforceable arbitration award under the Arbitration Acts
  2. 2 Whether the process followed by the auditor complied with the requirements for an arbitration award

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. O'Brien did not act as an arbitrator but as an expert; he did not conduct a process required of an arbitrator, and his letter of 17 December 2003 is not an enforceable arbitration award under the Arbitration Act 1954.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings dismissed as there is no enforceable arbitration award