In an arbitration concerning the right to maintain a weir, one issue was the depth of water which the defendant was entitled to maintain behind the weir. The award directed that, to define the height, marks should be placed as a third party should direct. The arbitrator made an award of costs in favour of the defendant which was taxed by the Master at pounds 172. The award was then successfully challenged on the ground that the arbitrator had wrongly delegated to the third party a question which he should himself have decided. The court remitted the award to the arbitrator, who added a plan indicating what the height of water should be. The defendant claimed costs under the allocatur of the Master after the original award and the plaintiff objected that the costs should have been taxed again after the second award. In support of the plaintiff’s argument, Mr Watson said, at p 238 ‘At the time the Master taxed the costs he had no jurisdiction, for the award was bad’. Erle J interrupted: ‘It was not adjudged bad. It was only sent back to the arbitrator on one point’. Mr Watson modified his submission slightly: ‘After it was so sent back there was no existing award until the new award was made’. Erle J commented: ‘What became of the award as to the residue of the matters which were not sent back, pending the second reference? It seems to be in a manner suspended’. Later, Erle J put a question to Mr Watson: ‘Suppose an award good as to three points, and bad as to the fourth, and sent back as to that alone, as at present advised I am of opinion that the arbitrator is functus officio as to the three and cannot alter his judgment as to them.’ Mr Watson did not dissent from the substance of this opinion. He said: ‘The arbitrator must re-award his previous award as to them, or the old award may stand as to them after the new award is made.’
Judges:
Erle J
Citations:
(1851) 20 LJ QB 236
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Carter (T/A Michael Carter Partnership) v Harold Simpson Associates (Architects) Ltd (Jamaica) PC 14-Jun-2004
(Jamaica) A joint venture partnership dispute was referred to arbitration. Certain elements were appealed and remitted. One party claimed that the entire arbitration was deprived of legal effect.
Held: The amended award following remittal was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration
Updated: 24 November 2022; Ref: scu.198418