— Part
I.
.
References by Consent out of Court.
463
Sect. 8. on [a) the reference, or after having been called on to act {b) by Time for notice in writing from any party to the submission or on or making before any later day to which he or they may from time to time The enlargement of Award etc. enlarge the time for making the award (c). the time must be in WTiting, and must be signed by the arbitrator or arbitrators after the time for making the award has expired, there is no longer any power in the arbitrator or arbitrators to enlarge the time (d) Where the reference is to two arbitrators and an umpire, and Where award
making the award has devolved on the umpire, he (e) award within one calendar month after the original or extended time for making the award of the arbitrators has expired, or on or before any later day to which he may from time The enlargement to time enlarge the time for making his award. of the time must be in writing, and must be signed by the umpire. After the time for making his award has expired, the umpire has no longer any power to enlarge it (e). Where the submission itself provides how the time for making the
the power of
must make
his
award maybe enlarged, such provisions should be strictly observed( f). The parties to a submission may expressly consent to the time for making the award being enlarged, but the consent should be given in writing, because it has been held that an enlargement of the time by consent of the parties amounts in law to a fresh submission and therefore, unless the consent be in writing, the submission becomes an oral submission, and the provisions of the Arbitration Act would cease to be applicable thereto (g). •
.
.
.
^^P^^®*
Consent in writing to eniargfement of time,
The
may
parties to a submission
by their conduct be precluded
award on the ground that it was made out of time, although they had given no express consent to the time for making the award being enlarged (h). from objecting
to the
statute " month " means a lunar month, unless it appears that a calendar month, was intended (Re Swinford and Horn (1817), 6 M. & S. 226 Simpson v.
See title Time. (a) An arbitrator " enters on " the reference when he hears the case neither acceptance of the office of arbitrator nor giving notice of his intention to proceed amount to entering on the reference [Baker y. Stephens (1867), L. E. 2 Q. B. 523; and see CudliffY. Walters (1839), 2 Mood. & R. 232). See Baring Gould v. Sharpmgton etc. Syndicate, [1899] 2 Ch. 80. {!)) (c) Oswald V. Earl Grey (1855), 24 L. J. (q. b.) 69, 72. See Encyclopaedia of Forms, Vol. II., p. 140. (d) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 2, Schedule I. (c). (e) Ibid., s. 2, Schedule I. (e). (/) Beade v. Button (1836), 2 M. & W. 69. (g) Ibid. ; and compare HaldenY. Glasscock (1826), 5 B. & 0. 390, and Leggett v. Finlay (1829), 6 Bing. 255. As to enlargement of time constituting a fresh submission, see Stephens v. Lowe (1832), 9 Bing. 32, per Tindal, C.J. Re Hick (1819), 8 Taunt. 694 Laivrence v. {h) B. V. Hill (1819), 7 Price, 636 Hodgson (1826), 1 Y. & J. 16 Benioell v. Hinxman (1835), 3 Dowl. 500 Burlev Hallett v. Hallett (1839), 7 Dowl. 389"; V. Stephens (1836), 1 M. & W. 156 Haioksworth v. Brammall (1840), 5 My. & Cr. 281 Tyerman v. Smith (1856), Watson y. Bennett (1860), 5 IT. & N. 831 Palmer v. Metropolitan 6 E. & B. 719 Bail. Co. (1862), 31 L, J. (q. b.) 259 and compare Bingland v. Loiundes (1864), 17 C. B. (n. s.) 514. It was held in Darnley v. London, Chatham and Bover Bail. Co. (1867), L. E. 2 H. L. 43, 57, that taking up an award made out of time did not preclude the party taking it up from objecting that it was made out of time.
Margitson (1847), 11 Q. B.
23).
Estoppel from "'award out of time,
