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. Â
Arbitration - From: 1992 To: 1992
This page lists 5 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018.
ÂJones v Sherwood Services plc [1992] 1 WLR 277; [1992] 2 All ER 170
1992
CA
Dillon LJ, Simon LJ
Arbitration
There had been an expert determination by an accountant of the amount of sales for the purpose of the valuation of shares. The accountant had made his determination in the form of a non speaking certificate. The court was asked when such a jointly appointed expert's valuation could be set aside. Held: The decision of an expert is binding on the parties unless the expert had departed from the instructions in a material respect.
Dillon LJ said: "On principle, the first step must be to see what the parties have agreed to remit to the expert, this being, as Lord Denning M.R. said in Campbell v Edwards, a matter of contract. The next step must be to see what the nature of the mistake was, if there is evidence to show that. If the mistake made was that the expert departed from his instructions in a material respect - e.g., if he valued the wrong number of shares, or valued shares in the wrong company, or if, as in Jones (M.) v. Jones (R.R.) [1971] 1 W.L.R. 840, the expert had valued machinery himself whereas his instructions were to employ an expert valuer of his choice to do that - either party would be able to say that the certificate was not binding because the expert had not done what he was appointed to do.
The present case is quite different, however, as [the experts] have done precisely what they were asked to do."
Â
K/S Norjarl A/S v Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd [1992] QB 863; [1991] 3 All ER 211; [1991] 3 WLR 1025
1992
CA
Legatt LJ
Arbitration, Legal Professions
A third arbitrator appointed by the arbitrators already appointed, accepted office on the basis that the hearing would take place by a specified date and would last for a specified period. Three years later, the plaintiffs’ solicitors requested the arbitrators to fix a period for the hearing over twice as long and in two further years’ time. The third arbitrator replied that the tribunal might consider this but that the parties should consider the fees likely to be incurred and he set out a statement of the fees chargeable including a non-refundable commitment fee payable in advance of the hearing. The defendants’ arbitrator took no part in the ensuing discussion of fees. The parties did not accept the proposal but invited its withdrawal. The third arbitrator and the plaintiffs’ arbitrator offered their resignations. The plaintiffs’ solicitors made a proposal acceptable to the arbitrators but sought an assurance that the defendants’ solicitors had no objection to the plaintiffs making the payments proposed. The defendants’ solicitors maintained that the two arbitrators had no power to demand advance fees; the fees were excessive, and that it was inappropriate for one party to pay the fees demanded to the two arbitrators. They did not allege partiality. They later wrote that both arbitrators should continue on the terms as appointed but withdrawing the new fees demand. The plaintiffs sought declarations that the arbitrators were fit and proper persons to act and that their acceptance of the plaintiffs’ fee arrangements would not raise any imputations of bias. The defendants applied for an order that the two arbitrators be removed. Held: For an arbitrator to insist upon a fee without the consent of all parties constitutes misconduct: "Any fee upon which (the arbitrators) wish to insist should be made known at the outset before acceptance of appointment."
However, the express disavowal by the defendants of any imputation of actual bias and their request that the arbitrators continue to act, precluded the exercise by the court of its discretion to remove them but, that the conclusion of an agreement between the arbitrators and the plaintiffs on the basis of the plaintiffs’ revised proposal would be improper. The majority took the view that by reason of the change in circumstances the request for a commitment fee was justified, that a mere request by an arbitrator for a commitment fee did not amount to misconduct and that, in any event, even if the entry by the arbitrators into separate negotiations with the plaintiffs for their fees amounted to misconduct, the express disavowal of bias and request of the arbitrators to continue to act precluded their removal.
1 Citers
Â
Handley v Nationwide Anglia Building Society [1992] 2 EGLR 114
1992
Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant
The issue on a challenge of an arbitration award was whether the arbitrator had acted fairly.
1 Citers
Â
Jones v Sherwood Computer Services Limited plc [1992] 1 WLR 277
1992
CA
Company, Arbitration
A contract provided for the sale and purchase of shares. In the absence of agreement a third party firm of accountants would act as valuer as an expert, and his decision was to be final and binding on the parties. One party now appealed a decision not to strike out a claim which sought to go behind the valuation. Held: The agreement was clear, and there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the valuer, or that he had departed from his instructions. The parties had agreed to be bound by his decision whether given with or without reasons. His decision was binding. Appeal allowed.
1 Citers
Â
 Channel Tunnel Group Ltd and Another v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd and Others; CA 1-Apr-1992 - Gazette, 01 April 1992
Â