Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/688

 —

.

.

Arbitration.

466 Sect.

9.

by the Court

(z).

The

fact that the

arbitrator

or

umpire has

Special Case expressed no opinion on the question of law which the applicant for Opinion desires to submit to the Court is immaterial (a). of Court. submission sometimes provides that neither party shall apply

A

Court for an order directing the statement of a special case but such a provision does not prevent the Court from making an order for the statement of a special case (b) to the

Award

not-

withstanding request for special case.

Costs of special case.

An

979.

order directing the statement of a special case cannot be award has been made (c) it is therefore advisable, if the arbitrator refuses to state a special case, to request him to defer making his award until an application has been made to the Court for an order directing the statement of a special case. If the arbitrator or umpire, notwithstanding such request, proceeds to make his award, he is, assuming the application for a special case was such as ought to have been granted, guilty of misconduct," and the Court can thereupon set the award aside or, if it think fit so to do, remit the matter to him with a direction to state a special case for the opinion of the Court {d).

made

after the



980. The Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the costs of the argument of a special case stated pending the reference {e). Such costs form part of the " costs of the reference and award " within the meaning of the Arbitration Act, 1889, Schedule I. (i), and are, where the provisions of that schedule apply, in the discretion of the arbitrator or umpire (/). Sub-Sect.

2.

Award

stated in

Form

of Special Case.

981. Unless the submission expresses a contrary intention, the award may be arbitrator or umpire may state his award in the form of a special so stated. case (^7) The exercise of this power is in the discretion of the arbitrator or umpire the Court cannot order him to state his award in the form of a special case. But where an application is made pending the reference for an order directing the arbitrator or Cases where



(2)

Re Grey and Boustead

(1892), 8 T. L. E, 703,

where the application was

refused. (a) (h)

& BaTier, Ltd. and H. Leetliam & Sons, [1897] 1 Q. B. 312. Re Hansloh and Reinhold (1895), 1 Com. Cas. 215 and compare Re Nuttall Be SpiUers

and Lijnton



Rail. Co. (1899), 82 L. T. 17. (c) Tahernacle Permanent Building Society v. Knight, [1892] A. 0. 298, at pp. 302, 304; Re Montgom.ery, Jones & Go. and Liebenthal & Co. (1898), 78 L. T. 406; Re Palmer & Co. and Hoshen & Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 131, at p. 138. See also Re London Dock Co. and Trustees of Poor of Parish of Shadwell (1862), 32 L. J. (Q. B.) 30. {d) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 11(2); Re Palmer & Co. and Hosken & Co., supra. (e) Re Knight and Tabernacle Permanent Building Society, [1892] 2 Q. B. 613. If, however, the case be stated pursuant to an order made under the Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 19, and th.e order directing the statement of the case expressly reserve to the Court the power of dealing with the costs of the argument, the Court has apparently jurisdiction to decide how such, costs should be borne. (/) The submission sometimes provides that the costs of the argument of a special case shall be paid by the party who applies for the special case, and it would seem that such, a provision is valid and effective. (g) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 7 (b), re-enacting in etc.

substance the

Common Law

Procedure Act, 1854 (17

&

18 Vict.

c.

125),

s.

5.