Hiscox v Outhwaite (No 1): HL 29 Jul 1991

An arbitration award is perfected in the place where the arbitrator signs it, irrespective of where the arbitration to place. If the award is signed in a country party to the 1958 convention, being and forcible as a conventional Ward under the operation act 1975, the English Court can nevertheless exercise it’s supervisory jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the award if it was made under English law. Lord Oliver said that: ‘A document is made when and where it is perfected. An award is perfected when it is signed.
The alternative submission is that an award is ‘made’ when the arbitrator becomes functus officio and it is urged in the instant case that Mr. MacCrindle did not become functus officio until the parties were invited by the clerk of his chambers in London to take up the award. Up to that point of time, it is submitted, the arbitrator could have altered or withdrawn his award. Authority is of little assistance, but in so far as it exists it seems to me to be against the respondent’s proposition.
An estoppel may not have permanent effect as it will cease once the common assumption is revealed to be erroneous. In this case the shared assumption had been communicated by an exchange of letters between the parties.
Lord Donaldson, Lord Oliver
[1992] 1 AC 562, Times, 29 July 1991, [1991] 3 All ER 124, [1991] 2 Lloyds Rep 1
England and Wales
Appeal fromHiscox v Outhwaite CA 1991
. .
CitedBrooke v Mitchell 1840
Under a court order which provided for an arbitration, the award of the umpire was to be made and published, ‘in writing, ready to be delivered to the parties . . ‘ The award was executed by the umpire in the presence of two witnesses to whom its . .
At first instanceHiscox v Outhwaite (No 3) ChD 1991
A Lloyd’s syndicate’s whole account stop loss reinsurance was on terms which were agreed to be the equivalent of a follow the settlements clause. The question was whether the reinsurer was liable where the insurers, acting in a proper and . .
ApprovedHamel-Smith v Pycroft and Jetsave Ltd 5-Feb-1987
Peter Gibson J sad: ‘Thus the court is not so rigid and inflexible as to insist on the parties being held to an assumed and incorrect state of fact or law when there is no injustice in allowing a party to resile therefrom (see, for example, Multon . .

Cited by:
CitedJones and Another v Lydon and Others ChD 23-Aug-2021
No Estoppels Established to Override Majority
The parties were former members of a band, the Sex Pistols. They disputed the continued duty to accept the decision of the majority of its members as set out in a Band Membership Agreement. Mr Lydon asserted that over the years the obligation had . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.667374