SJW Facades Ltd -v- Bowen Construction Ltd & Anor [2009] IEHC 49 (03 February 2009)

SJW Facades Ltd -v- Bowen Construction Ltd & Anor [2009] IEHC 49 (03 February 2009)

The court held that the arbitrator did not misconduct himself or the proceedings. The documents relied upon were before the arbitrator as part of agreed bundles, and the onus was on the parties to object to their evidential status. No procedural unfairness or bias was established. The arbitrator's decision to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 49
Parties
Plaintiff: S. J. W. Facades Ltd; Defendant: Bowen Construction Ltd; Defendant: Kevin Brady
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Awards, Misconduct of Arbitrator, Procedural Fairness, Global Claims in Construction, Evidential Status of Documents in Arbitration
Arbitration Construction Law Contract Law Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Misconduct of Arbitrator Procedural Fairness Global Claims in Construction Evidential Status of Documents in Arbitration

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. J. W. Facades Ltd

Plaintiff

Bowen Construction Ltd

Defendant

Kevin Brady

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Arbitration Award / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator misconducted himself or the proceedings under s.38 of the Arbitration Act 1954
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's reliance on certain documents amounted to procedural unfairness or misconduct
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a finding in its favour due to lack of challenge to its evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitrator did not misconduct himself or the proceedings. The documents relied upon were before the arbitrator as part of agreed bundles, and the onus was on the parties to object to their evidential status. No procedural unfairness or bias was established. The arbitrator's decision to disallow the global claim for delay and disruption was within his remit, as S. J. W. failed to establish the necessary causal link between the events and the loss claimed. Mere error or misapprehension does not amount to misconduct. The application to set aside the award failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed