Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/696

 —

.

Arbitration.

474 Sect. 13.

Enforce-

ment of Award. Party out of jurisdiction.

Grounds

of

opposing application.

The application must be supported by an affidavit verifying the award {iv) The Court has no power to allow an originating summons or notice of motion for leave to enforce an award to be served out of

Where

the jurisdiction.

the party against

whom

it is

sought

award is out of the jurisdiction, it is therefore necessary to bring an action for the purpose (x). In answer to an application for leave to enforce an award, the respondent may set up that the award is a nullity, or is wholly or but if his objection in part ultra vires, or is bad on the face of it (y) to the award is that the arbitrator misconducted himself, or that the award was improperly procured, his proper course is to move to set the award aside (z), and, if necessary, to get the application In doubtful to enforce the award adjourned in the meantime. cases the party is generally left to pursue his remedy by action. to enforce the



Sub-Sect. Eefusal to

comply with award may be contempt of Court.

2.

By

Attachment.

991. A submission in writing, unless a contrary intention is expressed therein, has the same effect in all respects as if it had been made a rule of Court {a) and consequently a refusal to comply with an award made on a submission in writing is a contempt of Court, and in certain cases may be punished by attachment. Formerly a motion for attachment was the most usual method of enforcing an award where the submission had been made a rule or order of Court, but at the present time the enforcement of an award by attachment is very rare partly because an originating summons or motion for leave to enforce the award as a judgment or order of the Court is a more direct and simple and, as a rule, a more effective means of compelling compliance with the award, but mainly by reason of the statutory provision that, with certain exceptions, no person may be arrested or imprisoned for making default in payment of a sum of money (b) where, therefore, the award, as is usually the case, merely directs that one party shall pay a sum of money to the other, the Court is no longer able to order an attachment against the party making default in





payment thereof. Where, however, the award directs one of the parties to do some act other than the payment of money, and he refuses or neglects comply with such direction, the Court has power to order his attachment.

to

{tu)

6 A.

See Lnvd v. Hudson (1843), 1 D. & L. 236; Hayiuard v. FMllips (1837), E. 119; EiKjIavd v. Davison (1841), 9 Dowl. 1052; and compare

&

Hawlnjard v. Stocks (1845), 2 Dow. & L. 936. {x) Basch & Co. V. Wulfert, [1904] 1 K. B. 118. Periley v. Goddard (1796), 7 {y) Be Stone and Hastie, [1903] 2 K. B. 463 Term Eep. 73; Bandall v. Bandall (1805), 7 East, 81 Lamhe v. Jones (1860), 9 C. B. SwayneY. White (1862), 31 L. J. (q. b.) 260; and see Wright v. s.) 478 Graham (1848), 3 Exch. 131, and Bwm v. West (1850), 10 C. B. 420. (z) Davies y. Pratt (1855), 17 C. B. 183, 187 Woollen v. Brad.ford (1864), 33 L. J. (q. b.) 129; Brazier Y.Bryant (1825). 3 Bing. 167; Holland v. Brooks Macarthur v. Campbell (1834), 2 A. & E. 52. (1795), 6 Term Eep. 161









(a) -

(&)

Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Yict. c. 62), s.

s. 1.

4.