Factual and Procedural Background
The Applicant sought leave under section 6(11) of the Construction Contracts Act 2013 to enforce an adjudicator’s decision requiring the Respondent to pay €314,868.88 plus VAT for building works completed at a business park in The City. The original claim was €563,326.09. [1][2]
The adjudicator issued the decision on 27 July 2026. Two days later, two unidentified men attended the home of a Respondent director, claiming to be “republicans” and demanding approximately €563,000 on the Applicant’s behalf. The incident was reported to the Gardaí and remained under investigation. [3][4][5][6]
The Respondent sought a stay of enforcement pending the conclusion of the investigation or any prosecution. No charges had been brought against the Applicant or its director, who denied knowledge of or responsibility for the men’s conduct. [7][8][9]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court should exercise its discretion under section 6(11) of the Construction Contracts Act 2013 to stay enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision because of the alleged threatening conduct. [8][10]
- How the prejudice to the parties should be assessed when deciding whether to grant a stay. [11][12]
- Whether enforcement should be withheld to protect the rule of law while the criminal investigation continued. [13][14]
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent’s Arguments
- The Applicant had allegedly bypassed the statutory and contractual framework by pursuing enforcement through physical duress, making enforcement unsafe and contrary to public policy. [15]
- The alleged conduct constituted exceptional circumstances justifying a stay because it purportedly subverted the rule of law. [10][13]
- A stay would not prejudice the Applicant because payment could be made if the investigation produced no conviction. [16]
- The Respondent argued that it had been prejudiced because it could not rely on audio and video evidence while the criminal investigation continued. [17]
Applicant’s Position
- The Applicant’s entitlement arose from building works that the Respondent accepted had been completed and for which the money was due. [9][12]
- The Applicant’s director denied knowledge of the unidentified men’s actions, and neither the Applicant nor its director had been charged with an offence. [7]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Aakon Construction Services Ltd v Pure Fitout Associated Ltd [2021] IEHC 562 |
An adjudicator’s decision creates an immediate payment obligation and may be enforced forthwith notwithstanding later review by an arbitrator or court. |
The Court relied on this principle in emphasising the statutory “pay now, argue later” system and the prejudice caused by delaying payment. [18][19][20] |
| Word Perfect Translation Services Ltd v Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform [2023] IECA 189 |
Lawyers should take a broad-brush approach to costs and avoid inefficient use of court resources and costly “nit-picking”. |
The Court referred to this principle when directing the parties to address costs efficiently and avoid an unnecessary further hearing. [21] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court recognised the seriousness of the alleged threats but noted that the Applicant’s entitlement to payment was not disputed and that the adjudicator’s decision was binding on the Respondent. [8][9]
The Court held that granting a stay would materially prejudice the Applicant by delaying payment for completed works, potentially for months or years, and would undermine the purpose of the 2013 Act. [12]
The Respondent would suffer no direct prejudice from having to pay a debt it acknowledged was due. Its inability to present the audio and video evidence was not the relevant prejudice, which concerned future consequences of refusing a stay rather than the strength of its case in seeking one. [22][23][24]
The Court also held that the alleged wrongdoing remained an allegation. It had no basis for attributing the unidentified men’s conduct to the Applicant or its director, and neither had been found guilty of an offence. [25][26]
Even if wrongdoing were later established, the debt would remain due and there was no applicable right of set-off. The Respondent had provided no evidence that payment would prejudice the separate criminal investigation; the identified concern related only to possible use of the audio and video evidence in open court, which had not occurred. [26][14]
The Court considered that the rule of law was protected by allowing the criminal investigation to proceed separately, rather than by assuming guilt and withholding payment of a civil debt. [27][28][29]
Holding and Implications
STAY REFUSED: The Court declined to stay enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision. The Applicant’s lawfully due debt remained payable notwithstanding the ongoing investigation into the alleged threats. [28][29]
The criminal investigation was to continue independently. The matter was listed for further consideration of final orders and costs, subject to the parties notifying the Registrar if a further hearing was unnecessary. [21]
No broader implication or new precedent is identified in the opinion.