Flatley v Austin Newport Group Limited [2024] IEHC 359 (14 June 2024)

Flatley v Austin Newport Group Limited [2024] IEHC 359 (14 June 2024)

The arbitration clause did not require Mr. Flatley to pay his own costs and made no reference to costs, thus it was not an unfair term under s.132(1)(e) of the Consumer Rights Act 2022. The arbitration was governed by law, and the clause was clear and transparent. Therefore, the dispute must be referred to arbitration as agreed in the contract.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 359
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Flatley; First Named Defendant: Austin Newport Group Limited; Second Named Defendant: David Cushion; Third Named Defendant: MS Amlin Underwriting Limited; Fourth Named Defendant: AXA XL Underwriting Agencies Limited; Fifth Named Defendant: Hamilton Managing Agency Limited; Sixth Named Defendant: Hiscox Societe Anonyme
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (application to Stay Proceedings and Refer to Arbitration) / Judgment on Application to Stay Proceedings and Refer Dispute to Arbitration
Outcome
Application granted. Proceedings stayed and dispute referred to arbitration.
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract Terms, Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contracts, Interpretation of Consumer Rights Act 2022, Costs in Arbitration, Transparency and Good Faith in Consumer Contracts
Contract Law Consumer Law Arbitration Unfair Contract Terms Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contracts Interpretation of Consumer Rights Act 2022 Costs in Arbitration Transparency and Good Faith in Consumer 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Flatley

Plaintiff

Austin Newport Group Limited

First Named Defendant

David Cushion

Second Named Defendant

MS Amlin Underwriting Limited

Third Named Defendant

AXA XL Underwriting Agencies Limited

Fourth Named Defendant

Hamilton Managing Agency Limited

Fifth Named Defendant

Hiscox Societe Anonyme

Sixth Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (application to Stay Proceedings and Refer to Arbitration) / Judgment on Application to Stay Proceedings and Refer Dispute to Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an arbitration clause in a consumer insurance contract is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2022
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration clause requires the consumer to pay his own costs contrary to s.132(1)(e) of the 2022 Act
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration clause is not governed by law under s.132(1)(d)

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitration clause did not require Mr. Flatley to pay his own costs and made no reference to costs, thus it was not an unfair term under s.132(1)(e) of the Consumer Rights Act 2022. The arbitration was governed by law, and the clause was clear and transparent. Therefore, the dispute must be referred to arbitration as agreed in the contract.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Proceedings stayed and dispute referred to arbitration.

Orders

  • The dispute between Mr. Flatley and Hiscox is referred to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in the insurance policy.
  • Proceedings in the Commercial Court are stayed pending arbitration.