AUSTRALIAN ARBITRATION LAWS.

Greymouth Evening Star, 31 March 1910, Page 4

AUSTRALIAN ARBITRATION LAWS.

\N lAI id ill J XT MUX I DECIDED, fmi PUK3H association —copyright, j SVDNEV. ii 20 An imp. ml anl point in Au si i alia i, a r hitralion law was derided to dav hv til" High Cullll. tallest ions of law Were '-n hunt led f.,r .1. 1.-mn nal nm a- 1.. whe t Imr, under the roust nin i .ii n was competent lor ! ll" ( 'olnllloUV.v alt h • "tilt "I C.mei liat n.n and Arbil rat ion to make anv av.aid wlneh win in.-.>n-,s-with r.-itain award- or deierminalin.ls ot the .Stale Warns Boat,l,

Tlir i;i.illtniii.ii was m‘l up Ihai in in akj i; i; an a ward in a dispute extending beyond tin- limits of any Malt- tin-I’n-sitlunl of tin- Fedor, al Ai 1 >i! ! al it >n <A>u 1 1 was not bon ml hy any .Mate law ugnjaiing industry, Inn might prosciibe whatever In- 11u > 11 1 1 1 necessary in Di'dnr in I>rill o ;■ bunt an , -ffeci mil so! t b ln i l 1 1. ’lii' < 'lm i J ii >l ifr said I inn a; Ml r.a----i ion nn-an t, primarily, dt-1.-niii mil ion by a tri bit mil which was not an ordinary foint "1 justice bod ml In administer Ilie strict I'll les nf (lie coliinmi. statute, hut. a tribunal selected hy ill- parties IO a cniil nwersy, In which both suhniitted themselves and hy whose determination tin y agl eei 1 In he hniiud. The ellicacv of an award was ih riwd from I he agreement of sulnnission. Although statutory jirovisious for its enforceini'll I- were now coniiiionlv adopted,

I lie foundation i.if I lii' anlboii'y of the arbitrators was tin.' consensual agive--111< ■ 11 1 nf tin' parties. In tlir ciiuisi■ nf Dine Ilie meaning had been extended so as tn include determination by arbiters, .sonic of whom necess'Hily. were din free choice of (lie panics, hut (iiis iljflci'clKV ill tile itimln of choice did Mol alter the fundamental notion of the I unctions of the arbiter, which was lo make a determination Unit die parties were bound to obey. It followed that whatever the parties could lawfully .•lyree to do, they miylit. be ordered (1, do, and whatever they could not lawfully agree to do, they could not Inordered to do by the mbit rif ion tribunal. These conclusions were incontrovertible and indeed it was® agreed that they could not he controverted as far as they regarded any arbitration tribunal lawfully established within any civilised State. By a majority the Court answered the question in the negative.