Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/702

 480

Arbitration.

Sect. 14.

the arbitrator or umpire has failed to act fairly towards both (c), as, for example, where the arbitrator heard one party and refused to hear the other (d), or where he took instructions from or talked with one party in the absence of the other (e), or where he has taken evidence in the absence of one party (/) or both parties (g), or promised to hear certain witnesses and then made his award without hearing them (li); if the arbitrator or umpire refuses to state a special case himself or to allow an opportunity for an application to the Court to order a special case (i) if the arbitrator or umpire delegates any part of his authority (j), whether it be to a stranger (k) or to one of the parties (I), or even to a co-arbitrator (m) if the arbitrator or umpire accepts the hospitality of one of the parties, such hospitality being offered with the intention of influencing his decision (/f); if he acquires an interest in the subject-matter of the reference (o) or if he takes a bribe from either party (p). if

Remission

parties

or setting aside of

Award.







M. & W. 466 Lord v. Lord (1855), 5 E. & B. 404 Eads v. Williams (1854), 4 De G-. M. & G. 674 Auning v. Hartley (1858), 27 L. J. (ex.) 145 and Peterson v. Ayre (1855), 15 C. B. 724. Where there are three arbitrators all three must concur [United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Assoc. v. LLouston & Co., [1896] 1 Q, B. 567). Even where the award is to be made by two out of three arbitrators, it will be set aside if all three have not met and discussed it {Lie Templeman and Reed (1841), 9 Dowl. 962).







Cooper V. Shuttleworth (1856), 25 L. J. (ex.) 114. Osiuald V. Grey (1855), 24 L. J. (q. b.) 69. (e) Be Gregson and Armstroug (1894), 70 L. T. 106; Be Hich (1819), 8 Taunt. 694 LLarvey v. Shelton (18-14), 7 Beav. 455. But where each party was examined separately, and neither party expressed a desire to be present at the examination of the other, the award was upheld [Matson v. Trou:er (1824), By. & M. 17). (/) Walker Y. Frohisher (1801), 6 Yes. 70; Dolsony. Groves [l^^^], 6 Q. B. 637; Re. Tidsiuell (1863), 33 Beav. 213 Re Brook and Behomyn (1864), 16 0. B. But see (n. S.) 403; and see Bache v. Billingham, [1894] 1 Q. B. 107, 112. Atkinson v. Abraham (1797), 1 Bos. & P. 175. (g) Be Bleius and Middleton (1845), 6 Q. B. 845. As to when [h) Pitt V. Daiukra, cited in Earl v. Stacker (1691), 2 Vern. 251. the arbitrator may proceed ex parte, see Gladwin v. Chilcote (1841), 9 Dowl. 550 Scott V. Van Sandau (18J4), 6 Q. B. 237; TrT/er v. Shaiu (1858), 27 L. J. Be LLewitt and Portsmouth Waterworks Co. (1862), 10 W. R. 780. (ex.) 320 (?) See p. 465, ante. Ij) The arbitrator may delegate a purely ministerial duty, such as the ascertainment of the amount of costs {Holdsu-orth v. Wilson{l863), 4 B. & S. 18), But see Lvnott v. Long (1736), 2 Str. 1025, and Cargey v. Aitcheson (1823), 2 B. & C. 170. Tomlin v. Mayor of Fordwick {k) Johnson v. Latham (1850), 1 Lo. M. & P. 348 (1836), 5 A. & E. 147. (/) Pedley v. Goddard (1796), 7 Term Eep. 73, 77. (w) Little Y. Neiuton (1841), 2 Man. & G. 351. The arbitrator cannot reserve to himself the right to deal with future differences arising on the award {Manser v. Heaver (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 295; Be Tandy and Tandy (1841), 9 Dowl. 1044). {n) Be LLopper (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 367; Moseley v. Simpson (1873), L. R. 16 Eq. 226; Be Maunder (1883), 49 L. T. 535. To induce the Court to interfere on such a ground there must be something more than mere suspicion {Crossley V. Clay (1848), 5 C. B. 581). See Parker v. (o) Blanchard v. Sun Fire Office (1890), 6 T. L. R. 365. Burroughs (1702), Colles, 257 (where Titus Gates was the arbitrator); and compare /femp v. Rose (1858), 1 Giff. 258, and Kimherley v. Dick (1871), L. R. 13 Eq. 1. The award will not be set aside if the interest of the arbitrator was known to the parties at the time of his appointment {Banger v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1854), 5 H. L. Gas. 72 Jackson v. Barry Bail. Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 238 and see Eckersley v. Mersey Docks and Harhour Board, [1894] 2 Q. B. 667 Lves v. Willans, [1894] 2 Ch. 'ilS;' Bright v. Biver Plate Construction Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 835). The amount of costs {p) See Be Whiteley and Boherts, [1891] 1 Ch. 558. (c)

(d)

















'