Mitchell & anor -v- Mulvey Developments Ltd & Ors [2012] IEHC 561 (20 December 2012)

Mitchell & anor -v- Mulvey Developments Ltd & Ors [2012] IEHC 561 (20 December 2012)

Homebond, by its conduct after April 2011, represented an intention to engage in the proceedings and defend the case on its merits, leading plaintiffs to alter their position to their detriment; therefore, Homebond is precluded from invoking the arbitration clause and the application to stay proceedings is refused.

Citation
[2012] IEHC 561
Parties
Plaintiff: Mike Mitchell; Plaintiff: Margo Mitchell; Defendant: Mulvey Developments Ltd.; Defendant: Stephen Garvey (practising under the style and title of Adept Consulting Engineers); Defendant: Thomas Mulvey; Defendant: Robert Mulvey; Defendant: Design Development Services Ltd.; Defendant: National House Building Guarantee Company Ltd. (Homebond)
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to S. 6 of the Arbitration Act 2010
Outcome
application to stay proceedings refused
Legal Topics
Arbitration Clause, Estoppel by Conduct, Delay in Invoking Arbitration, Contractual Interpretation
Contract Law Arbitration Law Property Law Arbitration Clause Estoppel by Conduct Delay in Invoking Arbitration Contractual Interpretation

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mike Mitchell

Plaintiff

Margo Mitchell

Plaintiff

Mulvey Developments Ltd.

Defendant

Stephen Garvey (practising under the style and title of Adept Consulting Engineers)

Defendant

Thomas Mulvey

Defendant

Robert Mulvey

Defendant

Design Development Services Ltd.

Defendant

National House Building Guarantee Company Ltd. (Homebond)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Stay Proceedings Pursuant to S. 6 of the Arbitration Act 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party is estopped by conduct from invoking an arbitration clause
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration clause remains effective despite ministerial name change

Ratio Decidendi

Homebond, by its conduct after April 2011, represented an intention to engage in the proceedings and defend the case on its merits, leading plaintiffs to alter their position to their detriment; therefore, Homebond is precluded from invoking the arbitration clause and the application to stay proceedings is refused.

Court Disposition

application to stay proceedings refused

Orders

  • Homebond is precluded from invoking the arbitration clause
  • No stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 6 of the Arbitration Act 2010