Coen & Anor v Doyle & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 244 (25 March 2021)

Coen & Anor v Doyle & Ors (Approved) [2021] IEHC 244 (25 March 2021)

The applicants failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement between the plaintiffs and the Company. The evidence, including contemporaneous emails, showed that the RIAI 'Blue Form' terms were never agreed, the plaintiffs expressly rejected those terms, and no alternative written contract was concluded. There was no course of dealing or custom and practice sufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause. Therefore, the requirements of Article 8(1) were not satisfied and the application to refer the dispute to arbitration and stay proceedings was refused.

Citation
[2021] IEHC 244
Parties
Plaintiff: Patrick Coen; Plaintiff: Ellen Coen; Defendant: Mark Doyle; Defendant: Mark Doyle Building Contractors Limited; Defendant: Ballinagam Upper Consulting Limited T/A Mark Doyle Building Contractors; Defendant: Michael Browne T/A BBA Architecture
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 8(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration / High Court Judgment on Application to Refer Dispute to Arbitration and Stay Proceedings
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Referral to Arbitration, Custom and Practice in Construction Contracts, Burden of Proof Under Article 8(1) Model Law, Incorporation of Standard Terms, Written Arbitration Agreements
Arbitration Contract Law Civil Procedure Existence of Arbitration Agreement Referral to Arbitration Custom and Practice in Construction Contracts Burden of Proof Under Article 8(1) Model Law Incorporation of Standard Terms +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Coen

Plaintiff

Ellen Coen

Plaintiff

Mark Doyle

Defendant

Mark Doyle Building Contractors Limited

Defendant

Ballinagam Upper Consulting Limited T/A Mark Doyle Building Contractors

Defendant

Michael Browne T/A BBA Architecture

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 8(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration / High Court Judgment on Application to Refer Dispute to Arbitration and Stay Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an arbitration agreement existed between the plaintiffs and the Company under Article 8(1) of the Model Law
  2. 2 Whether the dispute should be referred to arbitration and proceedings stayed

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to discharge the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement between the plaintiffs and the Company. The evidence, including contemporaneous emails, showed that the RIAI 'Blue Form' terms were never agreed, the plaintiffs expressly rejected those terms, and no alternative written contract was concluded. There was no course of dealing or custom and practice sufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause. Therefore, the requirements of Article 8(1) were not satisfied and the application to refer the dispute to arbitration and stay proceedings was refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Refusal of the Article 8(1) application to refer the dispute to arbitration and stay proceedings