By agreement to refer, the Highland and Great North of Scotland Railway Companies submitted to the decision of an arbiter the following question:-‘whether the proviso of section 82 of the highland railway act 1865 applies to traffic exchanged under the Great North of Scotland Act 1884 between the two companies at Elgin, or whether the receipts of such traffic are to be divided between the two companies respectively, in accordance with their respective mileage, and under the rates of the Clearing House?’
The arbiter in his award found ‘that the proviso of section 82 of the Highland Railway Act 1865 . . does not apply to traffic exchanged under the Great North of Scotland Act 1884 between the two companies at Elgin,’ and further, ‘that the receipts of such traffic are to be divided between the two companies respectively, in accordance with their respective mileage, and under the rates of the Clearing House.’
In an action raised by the Great North of Scotland Railway Company for implement of the award, the defenders moved that they should be allowed a proof of the following averment:-‘The terms ‘traffic exchanged under the Act of 1884 between the two companies at Elgin,’ occurring in the question submitted to’ the arbiter, ‘do not include, and were not intended to include, passenger traffic. This was explained to’ the arbiter, ‘and he and both the parties acted in the whole proceedings before him on the footing that no question as to the division of passenger traffic receipts was submitted to him, and he accordingly decided no question as to the division of passenger traffic receipts.’
The Second Division ( aff. the judgment of Lord Wellwood) refused to allow the proof asked by the defenders, on the ground that the questions put to the arbiter and his award thereon were distinct and unambiguous, and ordained the defenders to implement the decree-arbitral.
On appeal the House of Lords affirmed this judgment, and refused to qualify it by an express reservation in favour of the appellants of a right to sue reduction of the decree-arbitral on grounds other than those pleaded in the present action.
Opinion reserved whether, apart from such reservation, such an action would be competent.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor (Halsbury), Lord Watson, Lord Herschell, Lord Morris, and Lord Shand
Citations:
[1896] UKHL 812, 33 SLR 812
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Transport, Arbitration
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.634020