Arbitration - 1960- 1969

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 11 cases, and was prepared on 26 February 2010.

Birtley & District Co-operative -v- Wendy Nook & District Industrial Co-operative Society [1960] 2 QB 1
1960	Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	Two co-operative societies disputed the areas they were to cover, and went to arbitration. The dispute was followed by an award. Held: "There is nothing on the face of the award to indicate that it is an unreasonable restraint of trade, against the interest of the parties or the public. And in my view, I am not entitled to look behind the award and become in effect an appellate tribunal from the arbitrators."

Tsakiroglou & Co Ltd -v- Noblee Thorl GmbH [1962] AC 93; [1961] 2 All ER 179
1961 HL Lord Radcliffe	Contract, Arbitration	1 Citers
	The arbitrator had determined a mixed question as to whether a c.i.f. contract had been frustrated. Held: A mixed finding of fact and law by an arbitrator is open to review by a court. Though in the ultimate analysis whether a contract was frustrated is a question of law, "that conclusion is almost completely determined by what is ascertained as to mercantile usage and the understanding of mercantile men."

James Laing Son & Co. Ltd -v- Eastcheap Dried Fruit Company [1962] 1 LLR 285
1962	Arbitration	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers

Re Poyser and Mills' Arbitration [1963] 1 All ER 612; [1964] 2 QB 467
1963 Megaw J	Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	A record of the reasons for a decision must meet the requirement that reasons must be adequate to see how it was reached: "Parliament provided that reasons shall be given, and in my view that must be read as meaning that proper, adequate reasons must be given. The reasons that are set out must be reasons which will not only be intelligible, but which deal with the substantial points that have been raised." There must be something 'substantially wrong or inadequate' in the reasons given before it can be set aside. The reasons can be briefly stated.

Kirkby -v- Robinson [1965] EGD 236
1965	Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant	Casemap 1 Citers
	It is fundamental for an arbitrator asked to settle a rent to adjudicate on the extent of a land holding in order to decide the amount of that rent. If the Parties could not agree it, then the arbitrator would have to do so. Such preliminary issues fall within his jursdiction even if the terms of the appointment restrict his duties to determination of the rent.

Fidelitas Shipping Co. Ltd -v- C/O Exportchleb [1966] 1 QB 630
1966 CA Lord Denning MR	Estoppel, Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	Issue estoppel applies to arbitration as it does to litigation. Lord Denning MR said: "Within one issue, there may be several points available which go to aid one party or the other in his efforts to secure a determination of the issue in his favour. The rule then is that each party must use reasonable diligence to bring forward every point which he thinks would help him. If he omits to raise any particular point, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident (which would or might have decided the issue in his favour) he may find himself shut out from raising that point again, at any rate in any case where the self-same issue arises in the same or subsequent proceedings. But this again is not an inflexible rule. It can be departed from in special circumstances."

Rahcassi Shipping Co SA -v- Blue Star Line Ltd [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 261
1967	Arbitration
	The court was asked who would count as a 'commercial man' for the purposes of an arbitration agreement. Held: The court declined to set out any general principles about who would qualify as a commercial man, but the term must be given a sensible and practical construction. The phrase was not so vague as to render the arbitration provision invalid, but was specifically chosen to be general, so that a wide field of people with commercial experience might be appointed.

Frak H Wright (Contractors) Ltd -v- Frodoor Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 433; [1967] 1 WLR 506
1967 Roskill J	Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	There was an error on the face of the certifcate of an accountant. The court looked at when it might go behind the certificate of an accountant on a question referred to him by agreement of the parties. Held: In this case the error was immaterial, but the court can in approriate circumstances look behind the certificate: "If this error had been material, it would have been enough to vitiate the whole of the certificate, small as it might be and regrettable as the consequences might be."

Liberian Shipping -v- King [1967] 2 QB 86
1967 CA Lord Denning MR	Arbitration	1 Citers
	The court considered what was meant by undue hardship: "‘Undue’ ... simply means excessive. It means greater hardship than the circumstances warrant. Even though a claimant has been at fault himself, it is an undue hardship on him if the consequences are out of proportion to his fault."

F & G Sykes -v- Fine Fare Ltd [1967] 1 LLR 53
1967 Danckwerts LJ	Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	The court contrasted a difference between the parties which was a mere failure to agree, with a dispute.

Lovelock Limited -v- Exportles [1968] 1 Lloyd's Rep 163
1968 CA	Arbitration	Casemap 1 Citers
	The contract provided both that a dispute must to be referred to arbitration in London and also for any other dispute must be referred to arbitration in Moscow. Held: The conflicting requirements for arbitration were so ambiguous as to be meaningless. There was no effective arbitration agreement.