— Part
I.
—— References by Consent out of Court.
481
^^^^t. 14. In each of the above cases he is guilty of misconduct, and the Remission Court has power to set aside his award. The parties may if they please waive any objection as to the or setting aside of misconduct of the arbitrator or umpire (q) but the waiver must Awara. and it would be made with full knowledge of the circumstances (7-) seem that the parties may by their submission agree that neither of Waiver of them will attempt to set aside the award on the ground of misconduct objection,
by the arbitrator (s). Sect. 15.
Apjieals.
997. The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an Appeals from appeal from the decision of the High Court on a special case stated ^^^^ Court, by an arbitrator pending the reference but, with that exception, every order made by the High Court on any application in the matter of an arbitration by consent out of Court is appealable (Q, but no such appeal can be brought after the expiration of fourteen days except by special leave of the Court of Appeal (u). From any order made by the Court of Appeal an appeal lies to the House of Lords (x)
.
Part II.— References under Order of Court. Sect.
1.
In General.
Justice has power to make orders Power to matter (other than a criminal pro- ^g^g^^g^^^g ceeding by the Crown) pending in the Court, or of a question or and the Court issue of fact arising in such cause or matter (y)
998, The High Court
of
for the reference of a cause or
may be so excessive as to amount to evidence of partiality {Turner v. Hose (1756)/l Ld. Ken. 393). (q) Biqnall v. GaJe (1841), 2 Man. & G. 830; Re SaJkeld and Slater (1840), 12 Thomas v. Morris (1867), 16 L. T. 398; Moseley v. Simpson (1873), A. & E. 767 J.. E. 16 Eq. 226; Dreiu v. Drew (1855), 2 Macq. 1, at pp. 8, 9; Mills v. Master etc. of Society of Botuyers (1856), 3 K. & J. 66. (r) Earl of Darnley v. Froprietors etc. of London, Chatham and Dover Railiuay (1867), L. E. 2 H. L. 43. (s) Tullis V. Jacson, [1892] 3 Oh. 441 and see Moseley v. Simpson (1873), L. E. 16 Eq. 226. (t) Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Yict. c. 66), s. 19. Leave to appeal from a decision of a Divisional Court is not required. See Wynne-Finch v. Chaytor, [1903] 2 Ch. 475, at p. 485, overruling Daglish v. Barton, [1900] 1 Q. B. 284. {u) E. S. C, Ord. 58, r. 15; and see Austin Friars Steamship Co. v. StracJc, If the order appealed from is a final order, tlie notice of [1906] 2 K. B. 499. appeal is a fourteen days' notice if interlocutory, a four days' notice (E. S. 0., Ord. 58, r. 3). As to what is an interlocutory order, see Be Croasdell and Cammell, Laird & Co., [1906] 2 K. B. 569. Whether in the case of an appeal from an interlocutory order made by a Divisional Court leave to appeal is requisite seems open to doubt. See Judicature Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 16), s. 1. The mistake of counsel as to the time within which an appeal should be brought is not sufficient ground for granting special leave to appeal {Re Coles and Ravenshear, [1907] 1 K. B. 1). As to appeals from an order made on an application to stay an action pursuant to sect. 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, see note {u), p. 451, ante. {x) Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 59), s. 3. " Subject to {y) See Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), s. 13 (1) awarded
H.L.
—
I.
