— Part for the
References by Consent out of Court.
I.
appointment
amount
of a receiver (m)-,
to taking a step in
453 Sect.
2.
Stay of Legal Pro-
the proceedings.
957. The applicant must satisfy the Court not only that he is, ceedings. but also that he was at the commencement of the proceedings, Applicant ready and willing to do everything necessary for the proper conduct must be ready
He must also file an affidavit to this effect to do every(??). in support of his application for a stay (o), and unless the Court is thing necessary for satisfied on the point the application to stay must be dismissed. proper conof the arbitration
958. Finally, the Court must be reason why the accordance with If the above who wishes the
duct of sufficient arbitration. to arbitration in Court must be
satisfied that there is
matter should not be referred the submission (p). conditions are fulfilled, then it
no
satisfied that
is for
the party
there
is
no
sufficient
matter to be litigated in Court instead of being reason why referred to arbitration to show that the matter is one which ought the matter not be not to be referred (q), and unless he can show that, an order to stay should will be
made
referred.
(r).
959. Where the circumstances are such that the Court would have granted leave to revoke the submission, if an application for that purpose had been made, an application to stay would no doubt be refused (s). An order to stay will not be granted if it can be shown that there is good ground for apprehending that the arbitrator will not act fairly in the matter (t), or that it is for some reason improper that he should arbitrate on the dispute (u). Where all persons expected to join in the submission had not done so, a stay was refused {x). The fact that the matter in dispute involves a charge of fraud against one of the parties, and that the party charged with fraud desires the matter to be litigated in open Court, may, in certain {m) Zalinof v. Hammond, [1898] 2 Ch. 92. [n) Arbitration Act, 1889 (o2 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 4; Hodson v. Raihvay Passengers' Assurance Co., [1904] 2 K. B. at p. 841. And see Davis v. Starr (1889), (o) Fiercy v. Young (1879), 14 Ch. D. at p. 209. 41 Ch. D. 242; Renshaw v. Queen Anne Mansions Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 662; Parry Fox v. Railway Passengers Assurance V. Liverpool Malt Co., [1900] 1 Q,. B. 339 Co. (1885), 52 L. T. 672. (p) See Vaivdrcy v. Simpson, [1896] 1 Ch. at p. 169 Hodgson v. Railway PasB. D. 188; Walmsley v. White (1892), 40 sengers' Assurance Co. (1882), 9 W." E. 675 Joplin v. Postletlnuaite (1889), 61 L. T. 629. Lyon v. Johnson {q) Willesford v. Watson (1873), 8 Ch. App. 473, at p. 479 Temperley Steamship Co. v. Smyth & Co., [1905] 2 K. B. (1889), 40 Ch. D. 579
a
791, at pp. 803, 804. (r) See Wallis v. Hirsch (1856), 1 C. B. (n. s.) 316; Russell v. Russell (1880), 14 Ch. D. 471 ; Denton v. Legge (1895), 72 L. T. 626. is) See p. 449. ante. t) Ives and Barker v. Willans, [1894] 2 Ch. 478, 488. [u) Nutiallv. Mayor etc. of Manchester (1892), 8 T. L. E. 513; Eckersley v. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, [1894] 2 Q. B. 667. And compare Beddow v. Beddoiu (1878), 9 Ch. D. 89 Malmeshury Rail. Co.y. Budd (1816), 2 Ch. D. 113 ; Jackson v. Barry Rail. Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 238 Re Haigh and London and Northwestern Rail. Co., [1896] 1 Q. B. 649 Pickthall v. Merthyr Tydvil Local Board (1886), 2 T. L. E. 805; The City of Calcutta (1899), 79 L. T. 517, at p. 519; Wickham v. Harding (1859), 28 L. J. (ex.) 215. [x) Mason v. Haddan (1859), 6 C. B. (n. s.) 526.
Grounds for refusal of stay.
Impropriety of arbitrator acting.
Persons expected to join not doing so.
Party charged with fraud.
