Adams v Great North of Scotland Railway Co: HL 27 Nov 1891

Arbiter – Decree-Arbitral – Reduction – Act of Regulations 1695, sec. 25 – ‘Constructive Corruption.’
While the Act of Regulations 1695 was intended to put an end to the practice of reviewing any decreet-arbitral on the merits, and limits the grounds of reduction to corruption, bribery, or falsehood of the arbiters, the Court can set aside the award of an arbiter who has exceeded the fines compromissi, shown misconduct in the course of the case, or disregarded the conditions of the submission expressed in the contract or implied by law, but the word ‘corruption must be understood in its ordinary sense, and does not cover any action of the arbiter which is free from corrupt motives.
A contract for the construction of two sections of a railway provided that the second section should be ready by the 30th September 1884, or on or before such respective days thereafter as might be respectively fixed by an arbiter; that the contractors should be liable for damages arising from failure to finish the works, and payment of pounds 20 per day as compensation for loss of profits in case the sections were not open for traffic by the dates stipulated; and that ‘all disputes and differences which should arise between the parties in reference to the contract or in regard to the construction of it, or of the specifications, conditions, and schedules,’ should be referred to the arbiter. The specifications and conditions for the second section provided that a certain embanked portion of the line should not be formed until a separate contractor for a certain bridge had finished certain works in connection therewith. The contractors only got access to the ground in February 1886. The line was not finished till May 1, 1886.
In a question between the contractor and the railway company the arbiter found that the contractors were entitled to an extension of six months for the completion of the second section, but that they were liable in penalties for each day’s delay from 30th March 1885 to 1st May 1886.
Held ( aff. the judgment of the First Division) that the award was good, and that there were no facts which suggested that the arbiter had awarded damages in respect of any default caused by the railway company.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), and Lords Watson, Bramwell, Herschell, and Morris

Citations:

[1891] UKHL 579, 28 SLR 579

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Arbitration

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.636785