Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/697

 — Part

—

References by Consent out of Court.

I.

475

Sect. 13. Application for the issue of a writ of attachment for contempt in refusing to obey an award should be made by originating notice Enforcement of of motion (c) and, in addition to the usual formalities which must Award, always be strictly observed on every application for attachment {d), it is necessary that the applicant should, before serving the notice Application

motion, formally demand compliance with the award (e). In for writ of will the Court issue a writ of attachment where the attachment, validity of the award is doubtful (/'). Delay in applying for an attachment is a good ground for refusing the application (g). The issue of a writ of attachment does not preclude the applicant from also bringing an action on the award (li). of

no case

Sub-Sect.

3.

By

Action,

992. Every award is enforceable by action in every Court of Action to competent jurisdiction (i). award^ Where the submission is oral or the party against whom the award is sought to be enforced is out of the jurisdiction, an action is the only available method of enforcing the award (j). In such an action, if the defendant desires to set up that the award is bad because the arbitrator misconducted himself or the award was improperly procured, his proper course is to move to set the award aside (k). Such a motion must be made within the it is usually made on an originating notice of proper time (/) motion but there seems to be no good reason why it should not be made on a notice of motion in the action.



(c)

Davis

V.

Galmoye (1888), 39 Ch. D. 322



and

see

same case

(1889), 40 Ch.

D.

355.

See E. S. C, Ords. 44, 52, r. 4. See E. S. 0., Ord. 41, r. 5; Brandon y. Brandon (1799), 1 Bos. & P. 394 StruttY. Rogers (1816), 7 Taunt. 213, 215 Standley v. Hemmington (1816), 6 Taunt. 561 Ex parte Fortescue (1834), 2 Dowl. 448 Sykes v. Haigh (1835), 4 Dowl. 114 (but see Baily v. Curling (1851), 20 L. J. (q. b.) 235) Laugher y. Laugher (1831), 1 Dowl. 284; and compare Llemsivorth v. Brian (1845), 1 0. B. 131, 139; Lloyd v. Harris (1849), 8 0. B. 63, 74; Doe d. Williams v. Howell and see tir^iith (1850), 5 Exch. 299 Tattersall v. Parkinson (1848), 2 Exch. 342 V. Troup (1849), 7 C. B. 757, and Hatukins v. Beriton (1844), 2 D. & L. 465, where attachment was allowed to issue though there had been no personal {d) (e)













demand. (/) Hetherington (1850), 20 L.

Robinson (1839), 4

v.

J." (c. P.)

M. & W. 608;

Creswick v. Harrison

56.

Storey v. Oarry (1840), 8 Dowl. 299. R. V. Hemsiuorth (1846), 3 G. B. 745. Metropolitan District Rail. (?) See King v. Boiuen (1841), 8 M. & W. 625 ; Co. Y. Sharpe (1880), 5 App. Gas. 425 China Steam Navigation Co. v. Van Laun The plaintiff can in appropriate cases claim specific (1906), 22 T. L. E. 26. {g) (A)



performance of the award {Eads v. Williams (1854), 4 De G. M. & G. 674 Nickels v. Hancock (1855), 7 De G. M. & G. 300 Blackett v. Bates (1865), 1 Gh. App. 117 and see Llall v. Hardy (1733), 3 P. Wms. 187, 190 Wood V. Griffith (1818), 1 Swan. 43, 54). (/) Rasch & Co. Y. Wulfert, [1904] 1 K. B. 118.







(k)

BacJie v. Billingham, [1894] 1 Q. B. 107, 112 and see Pedler v. (1902), 18 T. L. E. 591 ; Smith v. Whitmore (1864), 2 De G. J. & Sm.

Hardy 297.

(0 E. S. G., Ord. 64,

r.

14.