Arbiters having disagreed devolved the reference upon the oversman, who issued proposed findings. One of the parties then discovered that the arbiter nominated by the other party, a railway company, held pounds 3700 ordinary stock therein, and intimated that in consequence he considered that the arbiter was disqualified from acting and that he would not hold himself bound by the award. In an action of reduction of the decreet-arbitral held that the ‘arbiter in question was disqualified, and that the decreet-arbitral was in consequence reducible at the instance of the other party to the reference.
Dimes v. Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal, 1852, 3 C1. H.L. 759, followed.
In an arbitration the arbiter appointed by one of the parties, a railway company, held stock in that company; the other party reduced the decreet-arbitral by the oversman on the ground that the arbiter referred to was disqualified, and claimed the expenses incurred by him in the abortive reference. Held ( rev. judgment of the First Division) that he was not entitled to recover his expenses in respect that there was no contract between the parties from which it could be inferred that the other party was bound to appoint an arbiter against whom no objection could be taken; that there was no statutory duty imposed on the railway company to examine their registers to see that the arbiter appointed was not a shareholder; and that, even assuming there had been a breach of duty, the damages claimed were too remote.
Lord Buckmaster, Lord Finlay, Lord Dunedin, and Lord Atkinson
[1919] UKHL 216, 56 SLR 216
Bailii
Scotland
Contract, Arbitration
Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.632770