swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Arbitration - From: 1960 To: 1969
This page lists 10 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018.
Birtley and District Co-operative v Wendy Nook and District Industrial Co-operative Society [1960] 2 QB 1
1960
Streatfield J
Arbitration
Two co-operative societies disputed the areas they were to cover, and went to arbitration. The dispute was followed by an award. Held: "There is nothing on the face of the award to indicate that it is an unreasonable restraint of trade, against the interest of the parties or the public. And in my view, I am not entitled to look behind the award and become in effect an appellate tribunal from the arbitrators."
1 Citers
Tsakiroglou and Co Ltd v Noblee Thorl GmbH [1962] AC 93; [1961] 2 All ER 179
1961
HL
Lord Radcliffe
Contract, Arbitration
The arbitrator had determined a mixed question as to whether a c.i.f. contract had been frustrated. Held: A mixed finding of fact and law by an arbitrator is open to review by a court. Though in the ultimate analysis whether a contract was frustrated is a question of law, "that conclusion is almost completely determined by what is ascertained as to mercantile usage and the understanding of mercantile men."
1 Citers
James Laing Son and Co Ltd v Eastcheap Dried Fruit Company; 1962 - [1962] 1 LLR 285
Re Poyser and Mills' Arbitration [1963] 1 All ER 612; [1964] 2 QB 467
1963
Megaw J
Arbitration
The section at issue imposed a duty upon a tribunal to which the Act applies or any minister who makes a decision after the holding of a statutory inquiry to give reasons for their decision, if requested. A record of the reasons for a decision must meet the requirement that reasons must be adequate to see how it was reached.
Megaw J said: "Parliament provided that reasons shall be given, and in my view that must be read as meaning that proper, adequate reasons must be given. The reasons that are set out must be reasons which will not only be intelligible, but which deal with the substantial points that have been raised." There must be something 'substantially wrong or inadequate' in the reasons given before it can be set aside. The reasons can be briefly stated.
Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 12
1 Citers
Fidelitas Shipping Co Ltd v V/O Exportchleb [1966] 1 QB 630; [1965] 2 WLR 1059; [1965] 2 All ER 4; [1961] 1 Lloyds Rep 223
1965
CA
Lord Denning MR, Diplock LJ
Estoppel, Arbitration
Where there is an award that is on its face an interim award, then the arbitrator is only functus officio with respect to the issues dealt with in that interim award and retains the authority to deal with the remaining matters. Issue estoppel applies to arbitration proceedings, including interim awards, as it does to normal civil litigation.
Lord Denning MR said: "Within one issue, there may be several points available which go to aid one party or the other in his efforts to secure a determination of the issue in his favour. The rule then is that each party must use reasonable diligence to bring forward every point which he thinks would help him. If he omits to raise any particular point, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident (which would or might have decided the issue in his favour) he may find himself shut out from raising that point again, at any rate in any case where the self-same issue arises in the same or subsequent proceedings. But this again is not an inflexible rule. It can be departed from in special circumstances."
1 Citers
Kirkby v Robinson [1965] EGD 236
1965
Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant
It is fundamental for an arbitrator asked to settle a rent to adjudicate on the extent of a land holding in order to decide the amount of that rent. If the Parties could not agree it, then the arbitrator would have to do so. Such preliminary issues fall within his jursdiction even if the terms of the appointment restrict his duties to determination of the rent.
1 Citers
Rahcassi Shipping Co SA v Blue Star Line Ltd [1967] 2 Lloyds Rep 261
1967
Arbitration
The court was asked who would count as a 'commercial man' for the purposes of an arbitration agreement. Held. The court declined to set out any general principles about who would qualify as a commercial man, but the term must be given a sensible and practical construction. The phrase was not so vague as to render the arbitration provision invalid, but was specifically chosen to be general, so that a wide field of people with commercial experience might be appointed.
Frank H Wright (Contractors) Ltd v Frodoor Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 433; [1967] 1 WLR 506
1967
Roskill J
Arbitration
There was an error on the face of the certifcate of an accountant. The court looked at when it might go behind the certificate of an accountant on a question referred to him by agreement of the parties. Held: In this case the error was immaterial, but the court can in approriate circumstances look behind the certificate: "If this error had been material, it would have been enough to vitiate the whole of the certificate, small as it might be and regrettable as the consequences might be."
1 Citers
Liberian Shipping v King [1967] 2 QB 86
1967
CA
Lord Denning MR
Arbitration
The court considered what was meant by undue hardship: "'Undue' . . simply means excessive. It means greater hardship than the circumstances warrant. Even though a claimant has been at fault himself, it is an undue hardship on him if the consequences are out of proportion to his fault."
1 Citers
Lovelock Limited v Exportles; CA 1968 - [1968] 1 Lloyd's Rep 163
