Arbitration.
450 Sect.
1.
The Submission.
who was expected to join in the do so has been held insufficient (m). Where the arbitrator has been guilty of gross misconduct or unfairness, leave to revoke may be granted {n) or the alternative course of removing the arbitrator may be adopted (o). Formerly, where it could be shown that the arbitrator was going to make some mistake in matter of law, the Court would in certain cases grant leave to revoke the submission, unless he undertook to state his award in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Court (p) but in such a case the proper application to be made now is not for leave to revoke the submission, but for an order But the
fact that a third person
submission has refused
to
Where
arbitrator about to make mistake of law.
directing the arbitrator to state a special case Revocation
mrtv^^^
{q).
952. At common law the death
of a party to a reference by conCourt operated as a revocation of the authority of the arbitrator, unless the submission contained either expressly or by necessary implication a provision to the contrary and the common law rule seems to be applicable in the case of a submission under the Arbitration Act, 1889 (?•). Formerly the marriage of a female party to a submission operated as a revocation of the arbitrator's authority but since the 1st of January, 1883, this is no longer the case (s). The bankruptcy of a party to a submission does not operate as a revocation of the arbitrator's authority that is to say, the bankrupt but the submission is as a is bound by the arbitrator's award but where general rule not binding on his trustee in bankruptcy the submission forms one of the terms of a contract, it is conceived
^^^^
By
marriage.
By bankruptcy.
— —
(m) Wilso7i V. Morrell (1855), 15 C. B. 720.
Brew (1855), 2 Macq. 1 Be European and American Steamship And see Cooper v. Shuttlevjort/i (1860), 8 C. B. (n. s.) 397. (1856), 25 L. J. (ex.) 114, where the arbitrator appointed by the other party failed to act. (it)
Co.
See Drew
v.
and Crosskey
(o)
See
p. 459, post.
p) Faviell v. Eastern Counties Bail. Co. (1848), 2 Excb. 344, at p. 350 ; Hart v. East .Duke (1862), 32 L. J. (q. b.) 55; Bohinson v. Davies (1879), 5 Q. B. D. 26 and West India Dock Co. v. Kirk and Bandall (1887), 12 App. Cas. 738. It was within the discretion of the Court whether leave to revoke should be given on See James v. James (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 12; see also Be this ground or not. Lord Gerard and London a7id North- Westeryi BaiJ. Co., [1894] 2 Q. B. 915; and, on appeal, [1895] 1 Q. B. 459. [q) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 19 ; Be Palmer & Co. and Eosken & Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 131, at p. 139. (r) Blundell v. Brettargh (1810), 17 Yes. 232; Toussaint v. Hartop (1817), 7 Cooper v. Johnson (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 394. And see Tyler v. Jones Taunt. 571 M'Dougal v. Clarke v. Crofts (1827), 4 Bing. 143 (1824), 3 B. & C. 144 Smith v. Fielder (1833), 10 Bing. 306; Be Hare, Bohertson (1827), 4 Bing. 435 Milne and Hasioell (1839), 8 Dowl. 71 ; Prior v. Hembrow (1841), 8 M. & W. 873 Lewin v. Holbrook (1843), 11 M. & W. 110. In Bowker v. Evans (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 565, the matter referred to arbitration was a claim for damages for a tort ; the death of the wrong-doer before the award was made extinguished the other party's claim for damages, and it was therefore held that the award did not bind the executors of the deceased party, though the submission conSee also Brooke v. tained a provision that it should be binding on them. Jfr^cAe/Z (1840), 6 M. W. 473. (s) See the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 75), s. 13, which provides that a married woman shall be bound by her ante-nuptial And see Conolan v. Leyland (1884), 27 Ch. D. 632. contracts. (
&
