—
Arbitration.
478 Sect. ]4.
Kemission or setting aside of
Award. (4) Misconduct.
Partial remission.
Further evidence on reconsideration by arbitrator.
Time
for
second award.
diligence have been discovered before the award was made, has since been obtained (/); (4) That there has been misconduct on the part of the arbitrator In such a case the Court has also power to set the or umpire. award aside, and the question whether, in any particular case where the arbitrator or umpire has been guilty of misconduct, the Court will remit the award to his reconsideration or will set it aside
depends on the nature of the misconduct. The whole award or only a part thereof may be remitted in the former case the award so remitted is of no effect (g), in the latter only that portion of the award which is remitted is avoided, and the remainder is valid and enforceable (h). Where an award is remitted to the reconsideration of the arbitrator or umpire, his original powers are thereby revived (i), and it is his duty to hear such further evidence as the parties may wish to present (k), unless the remission is merely for the purpose of correcting some formal defect or making some alteration in the award which would not involve the hearing of further evidence (l). Where an award is remitted, the arbitrator or umpire, as the case may be, must, unless the order remitting the award otherwise directs, make his second award within three months after the date
of the order {m).
Sub-Sect. Grounds award.
following (1)
as, for
improperly
evidence
procured.
arbitrator.
What
is
"misconduct."
(2)
{n)
—
may
be set aside are the
That the arbitration or award has been improperly procured, example, where the arbitrator is deceived (o), or material
(1) Arbitration or award
(2) Misconduct of
Settwg aside Award.
995. The grounds on which an award
for
setting aside
3.
is
fraudulently concealed (p)
That the arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself.
996. It is difficult to give an exhaustive definition of what amounts to misconduct on the part of an arbitrator or umpire. The expression is of wide import, including on the one hand bribery and corruption and on the other a mere mistake as to the scope of the authority conferred by the submission. Thus misconduct occurs if the arbitrator or umpire, as the case may be, fails to decide all the matters which were by the submission (/) Be Keighley, Maxsted & Co. and Durant & Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 405; Burnard Y. Waimuright (1850), 19 L. J. (q. b.) 423 Sprague v. Allen (1899), 15 T. L. E. 150; and see Solomon v. Solomon (1859), 28 L. J. (ex.) 129; Eardley v.
Otley (1818), 2 Chitt 42. {g) Be Dare Valley Bail. Co. (1869), 4 Oh. App. 554. {h) Johnson v. Latham (1851), 20 L. J. (q. B.) 238. {i) M'Bae v. M'Lean (1853), 2 E. & B. 946. {k) Niclmlls v. Warren (1844), 6 Q. B. 615; and see Baiter v. Hunter (1847), 16 M. & W. 672. Howett v. Clements (1845), (/) Anning y. Hartley (1858), 27 L. J. (ex.) 145;
Be Morris and Morris v. Benrice (1840), 6 M. & W. 754; B. 383. (w) Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 49), s. 10 (2).
1 C.
B. 128
(1856), 6 E.
Bird
&
{n) Ihid., s. '
11
(2).
Ives V. Medcalfe (1737), 1 Atk. 63, 64. Ip) South Sea Co. v. Bumstead (1734), 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 80.
(o)
