—
—
Arbitration.
446 Sect.
1.
The Submission.
When
arbitrator will be
The Court will not, as a rule, restrain an arbitrator from proceeding with a reference on the ground that the award will be inoperative (h) but where the submission itself is impeached, an injunction may be granted to restrain the arbitrator from proceeding until the question of the validity of the submission has
restrained from proceeding.
been determined
Clauses in submissions.
947. The parties may insert in their submission such clauses as they think fit {d). Where the submission is contained in a written agreement and does not express a contrary intention {e), the following provisions, so far as they are applicable, are implied The reference is to a single arbitrator unless some other mode (i.) of reference is provided (/). (ii.) If the reference is to two arbitrators, the two arbitrators may appoint an umpire (g) if the arbitrators fail to make an award within the time (li) allowed to them for that purpose or give written notice to any party to the submission or to the umpire that they are unable to agree upon an award, the umpire may forthwith enter upon the reference in lieu of the arbitrators (i). (iii.) The parties to the submission, and all other persons who are bound thereby, must, subject to any legal objection, submit themselves for examination on oath or affirmation in relation to the matters in dispute (k).
(c).
Stjb-Sect.
6.
Clauses.
" it does not constitute the arbitration a " proceeding in the Court within the meaning of the Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 'SI Vict. c. 66), s. 100, and it therefore does not enable the Court to direct the issue of a commission for the examination of witnesses out of the jurisdiction (Be Shaiu and Ronaldsoriy [1892] 1 Q. B. 91) nor does it make the refusal of either party to appoint an arbitrator a contempt of Court {Re Smith and Service and Nelson & Sons (1890), 2o Q. B. D. 545) but it does make disobedience to the award a contempt of Court punishable in certain cases by attachment. See pp. 473 et seq., post. {b) North London Rail. Co. v. Great Northern Rail. Co. (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 30; London and BlachiuaU Rail. Co. v. Cross (1886), 31 Ch. D. 354, at p. 368. And see Farrar v. Coo2-)er (1890), 44 Ch. D. 323; Great Western Rail. Co. v. Waterford and Limerick etc. Rail. Co. (1881), 17 Ch. D. 493. (c) KittsY. Moore, [1895] 1 Q. B. 253; Sissons v. Oates (1894), 10 T. L. E. 392 Maunsell v. Midland and Great Western of Lr eland Rail. Co. (1863), 1 H. & M. 130; and compare MHarg v. Universal Stock Exchange (1895), 11 T. L. E.
practical effect
409. (d) For forms of clauses usually inserted in submissions, see Encyclopaedia to the of Forms, Vol. II., pp. 126 132; and compare Form 24 in Appendix Eules of the Supreme Court. clause stipulating that neither party shall apply to the Court to direct the arbitrator to state a special case under s. 19 of the Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), would seem to be invalid (i^e IfansZoA and Reinhold (1895), 1 Com. Cas. 215). (e) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2.
—
K
A
(/) lUd.,
Sched. I. (a). Sched. I. (b). (h) As to the time within which the award is to be made and the mode of extending the time, see p. 462, post. {i) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Sched. I. (d). (k) LUd., s. 2, Sched. I. (f), which provides that "the parties to the reference, and all persons claiming through them respectively," shall submit themselves -for examination. It is conceived that the words " all persons claiming through (g)
Lhid.,
s. 2,
s. 2,
