ARBITRATION ACT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLVI, Issue XLVI, 1 June 1914, Page 4

ARBITRATION ACT.

A JUDGE'S COMMENTS

At Dunedin on Friday morning MiJustice Sim delivered judgment in the matter of arbitration between Federick Bryan and others and Robert MoArthur Thomson, and James Hunter Thomson, an application under section 6 of the Arbitration Act of 1908, for the appointment of an umpire. The arbitrators appointed to settle questions in regard to the leaseofa parcel of land were unable to agree on the appointment of an umpire, and the court, Avas asked to make an appointment. In the ... cburs-9 of a lengthy judgment, his Honor said "A serious alteration has been made "by the Act of 1908 in the definition of 'Submission' an the Act of 1890, in which i the act of 'sub-1 mission' means a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration whether ;an arbitrator is named therein or not. This is the definition in the Act of ] 908:—'Submission' means a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration whether an arbitrator is named therein or not, or. under which any question or matter is to be decided by one or more, persons to be appointed by the extracting parties or by some person named in the agreement." These additional words alter considerably the scope of the Act, and appear to bring under its orovisions all written agreements for * valuations.% The result is that dnless otherwise agreed reference must be conducted as arbitration under the provisions of the Act,' and it is not necessary for an umpire to be himself a valuer. It is rather startling to find that such a change in this law should have been effected in the guise of consolidation. It is not referred to in the fi'ial report of the Consolidation Commissioners, and this fact suggests that the change wns made without their knowledge. The omission must have been made deliberately and by some person who was so ignorant as not-to know the difference between an umpire and a third arbitrator. The renort made by the commissioners on the 28th of July, 1908, throws an interesting light on the question of the authors ship of this change. The. Arbitration Act evidently must jkav.e been includocl an that volume of consolidated statutes that was sought to be imposed on the commissioners at the outset of their labors. This, they say, was more in the nature of a code than a consolidation, and entangled them in much needle-is labor. . Th«y had to spend much time and trouble in revising and restoringthe text of the Acts. The present condition of the Arbitration Act shows plainly that their effort^ in this . direction were not always successful. How many move similar improvements have been made surreptitiously in the statute law of the land, time alone will disclose."