O’Mahony v O’Connor Builders (Waterford) Limited  3 IR 167
- that, where a party was in default of making the representations which the agreed process entitled him to make, the expert was entitled to reach a final determination without reference to such representations. Whether a point had been reached which entitled the expert to make a final determination without reference to the representations of a party depended on all the circumstances of the case and in particular, the extent to which the party in default could be said to have been in specific breach of a defined obligation to make representations in a particular manner or within a particular time scale.
- that the process in which an expert was required to engage so as to reach a determination binding on the parties was primarily to be derived from and found in the agreement between those parties. In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, the expert was entitled to pursue his own lines of inquiry and use his own skill and judgment without necessarily referring to the parties.
- that the failure of the expert to give the plaintiff any notice of his intention to make the report final in the absence of compliance meant that the report could not be considered final. An expert, before proceeding to give a final determination, should give a defaulting party notice of his intention to do so.
HSE v Keogh  IEHC 419
“[a]…reference to ADR is analogous to an agreement to arbitrate. As such, it represents a freestanding agreement ancillary to the main contract and capable of being enforced by a stay of the proceedings or by injunction absent any pending proceedings. The jurisdiction to stay, although introduced by statute in the field of arbitration agreements, is in origin an equitable remedy. However, the availability of the remedy whether of a stay or an adjournment or case management order must be a matter for the discretion of the court.”