Arbitration - 1849- 1899

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 02 July 2010.

Threlfall -v- Fanshawe (1850) 19 LJQB 329
1850	Arbitration	Casemap
	There was a dispute about the entitlement of a lay arbitrator, who had been appointed by order of the Court to determine a boundary dispute between two estates, to charge for the attorney he had employed. Held: "Where parties appoint a lay arbitrator, if the reference is to be brought to a safe conclusion, it is almost of necessity he should have professional assistance in the conduct of it and in framing the award"

Johnson -v- Latham (1851) 20 LJ QB 236
1851 Erle J	Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	In an arbitration concerning the right to maintain a weir, one issue was the depth of water which the defendant was entitled to maintain behind the weir. The award directed that, to define the height, marks should be placed as a third party should direct. The arbitrator made an award of costs in favour of the defendant which was taxed by the Master at £172. The award was then successfully challenged on the ground that the arbitrator had wrongly delegated to the third party a question which he should himself have decided. The court remitted the award to the arbitrator, who added a plan indicating what the height of water should be. The defendant claimed costs under the allocatur of the Master after the original award and the plaintiff objected that the costs should have been taxed again after the second award. In support of the plaintiff's argument, Mr Watson said, at p 238 "At the time the Master taxed the costs he had no jurisdiction, for the award was bad". Erle J interrupted: "It was not adjudged bad. It was only sent back to the arbitrator on one point". Mr Watson modified his submission slightly: "After it was so sent back there was no existing award until the new award was made". Erle J commented: "What became of the award as to the residue of the matters which were not sent back, pending the second reference? It seems to be in a manner suspended". Later, Erle J put a question to Mr Watson: "Suppose an award good as to three points, and bad as to the fourth, and sent back as to that alone, as at present advised I am of opinion that the arbitrator is functus officio as to the three and cannot alter his judgment as to them." Mr Watson did not dissent from the substance of this opinion. He said: "The arbitrator must re-award his previous award as to them, or the old award may stand as to them after the new award is made."

In The Matter Of William Hind Lord In The Matter Of The Special Act Of The Governor And Company Of Copper Miners In England And In The Matter Of The Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 [1854] EngR 950; (1854) 1 K & J 90; (1854) 69 ER 382
25 Nov 1854	Arbitration
	Link[s] omitted

Bluck -v- Munday [1861] EngR 190 (A); (1861) 9 CB NS 557
17 Jan 1861	Arbitration
	It is no ground for setting aside an award that the arbitrator (the master) declined to accede to the defendant's request that he would have a view.
	Link[s] omitted

Burgess -v- Northwich Local Board
1877	Arbitration	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The jurisdiction of an arbiter was not ousted by a mere denial of liability. The authority had a duty to provide at least some prima facie evidence first.

Forbes -v- Underwood (1886) 13 R 465
1886	Scotland, Administrative, Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	The supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session was used to compel an arbiter to proceed with an arbitration.

Tabernacle Permanent Building Society -v- Knight [1892] AC 298
1892	Litigation Practice, Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court considered (obiter) it's lack of jurisdiction to make an order directing arbitrators to state their award in the form of a special case, at a time when the award had already been published earlier on the same day and the arbitrators therefore had discharged their obligations in relation to it.