ARBITRATOR’S POWERS

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12094, 23 March 1925, Page 4

ARBITRATOR’S POWERS

VALIDITY SF AWARD DISPUTE OYER BUILDING AGREEMENT. CHIEF JUSTICE'S DECISION. A dispute concerning an agreement* 6ntreed into for the erection of a dwelling mid the decision of an arbitrator which was challenged, formed the basis of an action In which reserved judgment was delivered by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supreme Court on Saturday. Plaintiff was William Heald, and tne defendant Alfred Samuel Erickson, and the claim was based on an agreement in writing. According to the statement of claim, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement in writing, whereby tne plaintiff agreed, to execute the work required to be done ill and about the erection for the defendant of a building for use as a private dwelling-house on the land of the defendant situated on the corner of Nikau and Kauri streets, Miramar. When the case came before the arbitrator the plaintiff did not produce an' 'agreement in writing setting out the work to be done. An agreement with the specifications was, however, presented by the defendant, and the plaintiff contended that the specifications were not binding on him and he produced none. The action was for £515 8s Gd and interest till date of judgment, for costs afid for further or other relief, and a sum paid into court. \ arious defences were filed, and an order by consent was made for trial before ail arbitrator. “This, therefore,” stated His Honour, “is not the case of a reference to an officer to report to a judge, upon whose report a judge will act. This was a reference to an arbitrator, and his award is equivalent to a verdict of a jury, and by this finding the court is bound. The order declared ‘that the cause of action appearing in the statement of claim be tried before H. A. Gold, Esquire, of the city of Wellington, public accountant, as arbitrator,’ etc. Is There, then, anything enabling this court to set aside the arbitrator’s decision? “All the objections urged were made before the arbitrator, and he had. in mv opinion, justification and power to deal with, them and to find whether they were valid or invalid. The plaintiff’s contention was surely very peculiar. After alleging in . his statement of claim a contract in writing, he relied on an oral contract, and denies the statement he signed and denies the agreement in writing he signed. The court had not before it the whole evidence given before the arbitrator, and if it had had it was not for the court to determine facts or law. “That was the function of the armtratar. There Is no misconduct alleged against the arbitrator, and the court does not lightly interfere with an arbitrator’s decision and ought not to in a case where it is asked to set aside an award on a ground different from what the statement of claim averred; that is, on a grotrnd that something not pleaded wa* the true relationship between she parties- In ’wns case full evidence ban been taken, and it is not suggested that the trial was not properly conducted. _ _ -The only fault found by the is that the arbitrator did not accept his view ot the facts. - “If this had been a verdict of a jury it could not have been disturbed, and it cannot he suggested that everything that could be said against the arbitrator awarding the amount he did award was not said or could not have been said. I fail, therefore, to see what authority the court has to set aside the finding and order a new trial.” . . - j Judgment was entered in accordance with the award. At the hearing Mr Mazengarb appeared for plaintiff and Mr Kirkcaldie for defendant.