Arbitration - 1930- 1959

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 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 10 cases, and was prepared on 26 February 2010.

Absalom Limited -v- Great Western (London) Garden Village Society (1933) AC 592
1933 HL Lord Russell of Killowen	Arbitration
	Lord Russell of Killowen: "My Lords, it is, I think, essential to keep the case where disputes are referred to an arbitrator in the decision of which a question of law becomes material distinct from the case in which a specific question of law has been referred to him for decision. I am not sure that the Court of Appeal has done so. The authorities make a clear distinction between these two cases, and, as they appear to me, they decide that in the former case the Court can interfere if and when any error of law appears on the face of the award, but that in the latter case no such interference is possible upon the ground that it so appears that the decision upon the question of law is an erroneous one".

Stotesbury -v- Turner [1943] KB 370
1943	Litigation Practice, Arbitration	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	Without prejudice negotiations are, as a matter of public policy, to be protected from disclosure to the court seized of the dispute. An arbitrator has the same discretion as to costs as has a High Court judge.

Racecourse Betting Control Board -v- Secretary of State for Air [1944] Ch 114
1944 MacKinnon LJ	Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	Power to stay - not derived from arbitration acts: ‘It is, I think, rather unfortunate that the power and duty of the court to stay the action [on the grounds of a foreign jurisdiction clause] was said to be under the Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 4. In truth, that power and duty arose under a wider general principle, namely, that the court makes people abide by their contracts, and, therefore, will restrain a plaintiff from bringing an action which he is doing in breach of his agreement with the defendant that any dispute between them shall be otherwise determined.’
	Arbitration Act 1979 4

Panamena Europea Navigacion -v- Frederick Leyland & Co [1947] AC 428
1947 HL Lord Thankerton	Construction, Arbitration	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The parties had entered into an agreement providing for arbitration of any disputes. Lord Thankerton: "By entering into the contract the respondents agreed that the appellant's surveyor should discharge both these duties and therefore they cannot claim that the appellant's surveyor must be in the position of an independent arbitrator, who has no other duty which involves acting in the interests of one of the parties." and "Dr. Telfer declined to proceed with the matter unless he was provided with the information to which, on his erroneous view of the contract, he held himself entitled; in this view the Appellants concurred, and this position was maintained up to and after the issue of the writ. This means an illegitimate condition precedent to any consideration of the granting of a certificate was insisted on by Dr. Telfer and by the Appellants. It is almost unnecessary to cite authority to establish that such conduct on the Appellants' part absolved the Respondents from the necessity of obtaining such a certificate, and that the Respondents are entitled to recover the amount claimed in the action." and "The view of the function of the appellant surveyor under clause 7 of the contract which I have already expressed, makes it clear beyond dispute that the Respondents have done everything which was necessary for them to do in order to require Dr. Telfer to proceed to consider the granting of a certificate under clause 7, but that Dr. Telfer declined to proceed with the matter unless he was provided with the information to which, on his erroneous view of the contract, he held himself entitled; in this view the Appellants concurred, and this position was maintained up to and after the issue of the writ. This means an illegitimate condition precedent to any consideration of the granting of a certificate was insisted on by Dr. Telfer and by the Appellants. It is almost unnecessary to cite authority to establish that such conduct on the Appellants' part absolved the Respondents from the necessity of obtaining such a certificate, and that the Respondents are entitled to recover the amount claimed in the action."

WT Lamb & Sons v Rider [1948] 2 KB 331; [1948] 2 All ER 402
1948 CA Scott LJ and Romer J	Arbitration, Limitation	Casemap 1 Citers
	An interlocutory order is generally not regarded as final in the sense of barring a further application on the ground of res judicata: "Execution is essentially a matter of procedure - machinery which the Court can, subject to the rules from time to time in force, operate for the purpose of enforcing its judgments or orders." The right to sue on a judgment is a matter quite distinct from the right to issue execution under it.
	Limitation Act 1939

Chandris -v- Isbrandtsen-Moller Co Inc [1951] KB 240; (1950) 84 Ll LR 347
1950 CA Devlin J, Tucker L.J	Arbitration, Damages	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court considered whether an arbitrator could award interest in circumstances where section 3 of the 1934 Act expressly conferred such a power on ‘the court’ in proceedings tried in a ‘court of record’. Held: Although section 3(1) of the Act of 1934, by its terms, empowered only courts of record to include interest in sums for which judgment was given for damages or debt, arbitrators were nevertheless empowered by the agreement of reference to apply English law, including so much of that law as is to be found in section 3(1) of the Act of 1934. Tucker L.J said that he had jurisdiction, not under the 1934 Act, but because the submission to him necessarily gave him implied powers, including implied power to exercise “every right and discretionary remedy given to a court of law”. Devlin J: "A rule of construction cannot be more than a guide to enable the court to arrive at the true meaning of the parties."
	Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 3(1)

Dean -v- Prince [1953] 2 All ER 636; [1953] Ch 590
1953 Harman J	Company, Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	An auditor had valued the shares in a private company under its articles. The court was asked to look behind the valuation: "In my judgment the valuation cannot stand. I propose, therefore, to declare that the valuation is not binding upon the plaintiff, and, if necessary - though I doubt if it can be necessary to restrain the defendant company from acting upon the valuation. The plaintiff asks the court to take upon itself the burden of ascertaining the valuation which should be made and then direct an inquiry on that footing. I decline to do either of those things. I do not see what jurisdiction the court has to put itself in the place of the expert that the parties have chosen. It may be that he would be unwilling to assume the burden of trying to do the same thing again, it may be that some agreement will be reached, and it may be that if and when he does come to a new decision one party or the other will refuse to carry it out. I do not propose to do any more than to relieve the plaintiff of any obligation that may be upon her to submit to the present valuation which could be implemented through the company, by the machinery which the articles provide, by the secretary signing the transfer of the shares."

Taylor -v- Barnet [1953] 1 WLR 562
1953 CA Lord Denning MR	Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	"an arbitrator has no jurisdiction or authority to award damages on an illegal contract"

London Export Corporation -v- Jubilee Coffee Roasting Co. Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 271
1958 Diplock J	Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court considered any discretion not to enforce a valid arbitration award: "When the arbitration agreement has been construed and no breach of the agreed procedure found there may nevertheless arise a second and quite separate question: that is, whether, as a matter of public policy, a particular award, made pursuant to that agreed procedure, ought not to be enforced and ought, therefore, to be set aside; for an arbitrator's award, unless set aside, entitles the beneficiary to call upon the executive power of the State to enforce it, and it is the function of the court to see that that executive power is not abused."

Margulies Brothers Ltd -v- Dafnis Thomaides & Co (UK) Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 398
1958 Diplock J	Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	A court has power to amend an award to put it into a form which is enforceable.