Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/690

 Arbitration.

468 Sect.

9.

Special Case for Opinion ot Court.

Enforcement

On

the hearing of the argument of an award in the form of a it is not the practice to make an order enforcing the award the Court merely decides the questions stated in the case, and an order for the enforcement of the award is made on a separate special case,

application.

of award.

Form

of

award.

Sect.

10.— The

Aicarcl (q).

984. Where the submission is contained in a written agreement and does not express a contrary intention, the award must be

made

in writing

(?•)•

Unless the submission prescribes in what form the award is to be made (s), it may be made in such form as the arbitrator or umpire thinks fit. The arbitrator or umpire, as the case may be, can make but one award, unless the submission expressly authorises him to make more {t). Collateral writings not attached or referred to in the award cannot form part of it {ii) It is usual to insert recitals in an award, but it is not necessary Inaccurate recitals do not affect the validity of the to do so (x). .

Recitals.

award Ambiguity.

(y).

No

particular form of words is requisite for the validity of an award it may be expressed in such language as the arbitrator or

umpire thinks fit (z), provided its meaning be clear {a). An ambiguous or uncertain award is bad and cannot be enforced

(b),

the reason for this difference in procedure being that in the one case the decision of the Court is, and in the other it is not, appealable. {(j) For forms of award, see Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II., pp. 145 et seq. (r) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Schedule I. (c). (s) Everard v. ratcrson (1816), 6 Taunt. 625 Henderson v. Williaiiison (1719), 1 Str. 116; Anon. (1826), 5 L. J. (o. s.) (k. b.) 16; and see Gatliffe y. Dunn (1738), Barnes. 55; Eardley v. Steer (1835), 4 Dowl. 423. {t) Gould V. Staffor dshire Potteries Waterworks Co. (1850), 5 Exch. 214, at p. 223 and see Stephens v. Loiue (1832), 9 Bing. 32 Winter y. Munton (1818), 2 Moo. 0. P. 723 and Re Smith and Reece (1849), 6 D. & L. 520. Compare Wriglitson v. Bywater (1838), 3 M. & W. 199, where the arbitrator was empowered to make one or more awards at his discretion, and Wood v. Copper Miners etc. (1854), 15 C. B. 464. {u) Leqgo v. Young (1855), 16 C. B. 626; Holgate v. Killick (1861), 7 H. & N. 418 Kent v. Elstob (1802), 3 East, 18. Davies v. Frat {x) Spence v. Eastern Counties Rail. Co. (1839), 7 Dowl. 697 Baker v. Hunter (1847), 16 M. & W. 672. (1855), 17 C. B. 183 (y) Thames Ironiuorks Co. v. R. (1869), 10 B. & S. 33; Watkins v. PhiUpoits (1825), M'Cl. & Y. 393, 397; Trew y. Burton (1833), 1 Cr. & M. 533; PaidlY. Paidl WhiteY. Sharp (1844), 12 M. & W. 712 Harlow v. Read (1833), 2 Cr. & M. 235 Re Lloyd and (1845), 3 r>. & L. 203 ; Baker v. Hunter (1847), 16 M. & W. 672 Spittle (1849), 6 D. & L. 531, 536; and see also Price v. Popkin (1839), 10 A. & E. 139. (z) Locky. VulUamy (1833), 5 B. & Ad; 600, at p. 602; Matson v. Troiuer Eardley v. (1824), Ey. & M. 17; Whitehead v. Tattersall (1834), 1 A. & E. 491 Steer (1835), 4 Dowl. 423 Smith v. Hartley (1851), 10 C. B. 800. See Harding























V.

Forshaw

(1836), 1

M. & W.

415.

Samon's Case (1594), 3 Co. Rep. 156 Re Tribe and Upperton (1835), 3 A. & E. 295 Baily v. Curling (1851), Mortin v. Purge (1836), 4 A. & E. 973 20 L. J. (Q. B.) 235; Wohlenherg v. Lageman (1815), 6 Taunt. 251, 254 Plummer Y. Lee (1837), 2 M. & W. 495, at p. 499 Waddle v. Doiunman (1844), 12 M. & W. 562; and see Freeman v. Bernard [IQ^l], 1 Salk. 69, n. (a); Armitt y. Breame (1705), 2 Ld. Eaym. 1076; and see Re Manchester etc. Co. and Siuinton Urban (a)











-District Council (1905), 22 T. (&)

L. E. 154. LaiurenccY. Hodgson (1826), 1 Y.

&

J.

16; Rainforth y.

Hamer

(1855),