Mount Juliet Properties Ltd -v- Melcarne Develoments Ltd & Ors [2013] IEHC 286 (19 June 2013)
The court held that the references to SE 9101 and ME 9101 in the engagement correspondence were sufficient to incorporate the standard terms, including arbitration clauses, into the contracts between the plaintiff and the third and fourth defendants. The plaintiff was put on notice of the standard terms and cannot avoid being bound by them due to lack of knowledge. Article 8 of the Model Law requires the court to refer the parties to arbitration, and there was no estoppel or delay precluding the applications.
- Citation
- [2013] IEHC 286
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mount Juliet Properties Limited; First Defendant: Melcarne Developments Limited trading as Walsh Brothers; Second Defendant: Campbell Conroy Hickey Partnership; Third Defendant: McCarrick Wood Limited trading as McCarrick Wood Consulting Engineers; Fourth Defendant: Hendrick Ryan & Associates Limited
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 19 June 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Plenary Proceedings (high Court, Ireland) / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Reference to Arbitration
- Outcome
- Applications granted; proceedings between plaintiff and third/fourth defendants stayed and referred to arbitration.
- Legal Topics
- Incorporation by Reference, Arbitration Agreement, Industry Standard Terms, Stay of Proceedings, Contribution and Indemnity
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mount Juliet Properties Limited
Plaintiff
Melcarne Developments Limited trading as Walsh Brothers
First Defendant
Campbell Conroy Hickey Partnership
Second Defendant
McCarrick Wood Limited trading as McCarrick Wood Consulting Engineers
Third Defendant
Hendrick Ryan & Associates Limited
Fourth Defendant
Procedural Posture
Plenary Proceedings (high Court, Ireland) / Interlocutory Application for Stay and Reference to Arbitration
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether standard form arbitration clauses (SE 9101 and ME 9101) were incorporated by reference into contracts between plaintiff and third/fourth defendants
- 2 Whether the court must refer the parties to arbitration under Article 8 of the Model Law and Arbitration Act 2010
- 3 Whether delay or steps taken in related proceedings preclude reliance on arbitration agreement
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the references to SE 9101 and ME 9101 in the engagement correspondence were sufficient to incorporate the standard terms, including arbitration clauses, into the contracts between the plaintiff and the third and fourth defendants. The plaintiff was put on notice of the standard terms and cannot avoid being bound by them due to lack of knowledge. Article 8 of the Model Law requires the court to refer the parties to arbitration, and there was no estoppel or delay precluding the applications.
Court Disposition
Applications granted; proceedings between plaintiff and third/fourth defendants stayed and referred to arbitration.
Orders
- Order referring the plaintiff and the fourth defendant to arbitration pursuant to Article 8 of the Model Law and Arbitration Act 2010.
- Order referring the plaintiff and the third defendant to arbitration pursuant to Article 8 of the Model Law and Arbitration Act 2010.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment