Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/692

 — Arbitration.

470 Sect,

10.

The Award. EfPect of

award.

Stamps. Execution.

Publication.

Alteration.

fulfilled (h),

which may

nor can power be reserved to deal with any difference on the award (i).

arise

An award

has such effect as the submission may prethe submission is contained in a written agreement and does not express a contrary intention, the award is final and binding on the parties and all other persons who are bound by the submission (k).

986.

Where

scribe.

A

duty of 10s. is payable on an award ©. the award is made by more than one arbitrator they should all execute the award together at the same time and place and in the presence of each other (?7i). If the only objections to an award are that all the arbitrators did not execute it at the same time and place in the presence of each other, the Court will, of course, remit the award to the arbitrators in order that the defect may be cured by its re-execution. Unless the contrary be shown, the Court will presume that the date stated in the award is the date on which it was in fact made (n). An award is published when the arbitrator or umpire, as the case may be, gives notice to the parties that it is ready (o). An arbitrator or umpire who has made his award is functns officio, and could not by common law alter it in any way whatsoever he could not even correct an obvious clerical mistake {p). But where the submission is contained in a written agreement, the Arbitration Act, 1889, enables an arbitrator or umpire to correct any clerical mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission {q).

987.

Where



Sect. 11. Arbitrator's powers as to costs and taxation.

988. The

parties

The Costs of

may by

with regard to the costs

the Arbitration.

their submission

of the arbitration as

make such agreement may think fit (r).

they

(h) Sherrey Y. Richardson (1595), Poph. 15; Fitrserv. Prowd (1618), Cro. (Jac.) 423 K'inge v. Fines (1662), Sid. 59; Crofts v. Harris (1692), Garth. 187 Baillie V. Edinburgh Oil Gas Light Co. (1835), 3 01. & F. 639, 655; compare, however, Turner v. Swainson (1836), 1 M. & W. 572 Nickels v. Hancock (1855), 7 De Gr. M. & G-. 300. See also Collet v. Fodiuell (1671), 2 Keb. 670. Fee Tandy and Tandy (1841), (0 Manser v. Heaver (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 295; 9 Dowl. 1044. {k) See p. 443, ajite. (l) Eevenue Act, 1906 (6Edw. 7, c. 20), s. 9 Goodson v. Forbes (1815), 6 Taunt.







171.

M. & W. 466; Wade v. Doiuling (1854), 4 44; EadsY. Williams {^b^), 4 De G. M. & G-. 674, 689; Peterson y, Ayre (1855), 15 C. B. 724; Anning v. Hartley (1858), 27 L. J. (EX.) 145; and see Little V. Neiuton (1841), 9 Dowl. 4i37 Re Lord and Lord (1855), 5 E. & B. 404. (n) Doe d. Clarke v. Stillwell (1838), 8 A. & E. 645. (o) MusselbrookY. Hunkin (1833), 9 Bing. 605; Macarthur v. Campbell (1833), 5 B. & Ad. 518; Brooke v. Mitchell (1840), 6 M. & W. 473; and see Blundtll V. Brettargh (1810), 17 Yes. 232, at p. 236. and see Henfree v. Bromley {p) Mordue v. Palmer (1870), 6 Ch. App. 22 An alteration made (1805), 6 East, 309; Brooke v. Mitchell, supra, at p. 476. by a stranger is, of course, nugatory {Trtiu v. Burton (1833), 1 Or. & M. 533). See p. 458, ante. {q) 52 & 53 Yict. c. 49, s. 7 (c). (r) See Fitzsimmons v. Lord Mostyn, [1904] A. 0. 46. Power to deal with the (m) Stalworth v. Inns (1844), 13

E.

&B.