Challenge was brought against the fees charged by the arbitrator, and in particular at the cost of the arbitrator bringing in a legally qualified draftsman.
Held: A draftsman’s task would not be himself to refine the arbitrator’s reasoning, but rather to express it as exactly as was necessary for the case. Such an appointment would be unnecessary in most cases, and particularly where the amount at issue was not great, but could apply where the issues were complex, although an assessor might be more appropriate. Antagonism and a legalistic approach would not of itself justify such an appointment, though the attitude of the parties in general could be taken into account. Old cases were not useful in such a context. The court would not say that the appointment was wrong, but the costs incurred were quite disproportionate and reduced accordingly.
The Honourable Mr Justice Thomas
[2003] EWHC 1656 (Comm), Times 12-Aug-2003, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 537
Bailii
Arbitration Act 1996 28(2) 28(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Threlfall v Fanshawe 1850
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 . .
Cited – Re Collyer-Bristow and Co 1901
The issue was whether a bill of the solicitors employed to advise the Umpire was taxable and, if so, in which Division of the High Court . .
Cited – Transcatalana de Commercio SA v Incobrassa Industrial e Commercial Brazileira SA 1995
. .
Cited – Kurkjian v Marketing Exchange No 2 1986
If a tribunal employs a lay or legal draftsman, the tribunal has a duty to satisfy themselves that the fee he charges is fair and reasonable; the extent of the work required of the tribunal in examining the fees charged by the lawyer is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 August 2021; Ref: scu.184651
