Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/691

 — Part

1.

,

References by Consent out of Court.

469

Sect. lo. 985. The award must determine all the differences which the and, on the The Award, by their submission referred to arbitration other hand, it must not purport to determine matters which were not comprised in the submission. award. An award which does not decide the differences referred to arbiSo also is an award which tration is bad and unenforceable (c). purports to determine matters not comprised in the submission [d) unless the part of the award which was beyond the scope of the arbitration can be severed from that which deals with the matters comprised in the submission, in which case the latter part will be held good and valid (e). The Court presumes, unless and until the contrary be shown, Burden of that the arbitrator or umpire has by his award determined those matters, and those matters only, which were referred to him. The award? burden of proving that he has awarded on matters not within the submission, or that he has failed or omitted to award on matters which were within the submission, lies on the party who seeks to impeach the award (/). Where by the submission all matters in difference between the parties are referred to arbitration, the award is valid if it deals with all the differences which were placed before the arbitrator, though there may be other differences which they

parties



did not bring to his notice

The award must be

and therefore a conditional award is provide an alternative in case the condition be not

bad unless

it

25 L.

s.)

(1824),

T.

(o.

2 8im.

(g).

&

final,

247; Be Tidsiuell (1863), 33 Beav. 213; Hopcraft v. Hichman St. 130; Watson y. Watson (1648), Styles, 28, 56 (''a vicars'

award ") Massey v. Aubry (1652), Styles, 365. Compare Love v. Honeybonrne (182-1), 4]3. & E. 814 and see Johnson v. Wilson (1741), Willes, 248, where the arbitrator awarded that there should be a partition between the parties, but did not give the directions necessary to make the partition effectual, and it was held that the award was invalid.



(c) Bradford v. BryaniH-il), Willes, 268; Bandall v. Bandall (1805), 7 East, Turner v. Turner (1827), 3 Euss. 494; Samuel v. Goober (1835), 2 A. «& E. 81 752; Wilkinson v. Page (1841), 1 Hare, 276; Heivitt v. Hewitt (1841), 1 Q. B. 110 Be Marshall and Br esser {184c2), 3 Q. B. 878 Bichardson v. Worsley (1850), 5 Exch. 613; Boss v. Boards (1838), 8 A. & E. 290, where the award was held bad in that it did not decide the matter referred and gave directions which were beyond the power of the arbitrator. The award need not, unless the submission so directs, deal with each matter of difference separately {Whitworthy. Hulse (1866), L. E. 1 Exch. 251; and see Be Brown and Croydon Canal Co. (1839), 9 A. & E. 522, 528, 530). id) Duhe of Bucrleuch v. Metropolitan Board of Woi^ks (1870), L. E. 5 Exch. 221, (1872) L. E. 5 H. L. 418; Boiues v. Fernie (1838), 4 My. & Cr.





150.

Be Wright and Gromford Ga7ial Go. (1841), 1 Q. B. 98. See Aitcheson Garqey (1824), 2 Bing. 199; Leadbetter y. Marylebone Corporation, [1904] 2 K. B. 893. (/) Bland & Co., Ltd. v. Biissian Bank for Foreign Trade (1906), 11 Com. Cas. 71; Jewell v. Christie (1867), L. E. 2 C. P. 296; Llarrison v. Cresiuick (1853), 13 C. B. 399; Ingram v. Milnes (1807), 8 East, 445; Cargey y. Aitcheson (1823), 2 B. & C. 170; W^jattY. Gurnell (1841), 1 Dowl. (n. s.) 327; Day y. Bonnin (1836), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 219 Wynne y. Edwards (1844), 12 M. & W. 708 Berry v. Mitchell (1844), 12 M. & W. 792 Smith v. Hartley (1851), 10 C. B. 800; (e)

V.







and see Wood

v. Crriffith (1818), 1

Swan.

Burr. 275. {g) Hawksiuorth v. Brammall (1840), 5 (1847), 16 M. & W. 263.

43,

and Hawkins

My. &

Cr. 281



v. Colclough (1757), 1

and

see Bees v. Waters

Conditional awards.