Halliday v. Duke of Hamilton's Trustees [1903] ScotLR 40_628 (26 May 1903)

Halliday v. Duke of Hamilton's Trustees [1903] ScotLR 40_628 (26 May 1903)

The arbiters (engineers) were not disqualified from acting as arbiters because their expressions of opinion were made in their capacity as advisers to the employers during negotiations and not as arbiters. Such communications were contemplated by the contract, and there was no evidence of bias or pre-judgment that would prevent them from acting impartially if and when a formal reference was made.

Citation
[1903] ScotLR 40_628
Parties
Pursuer (plaintiff): George Halliday; Defenders (defendants): Trustees of the Duke of Hamilton
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
26 May 1903
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.
Legal Topics
Arbiter Disqualification, Arbitration Clause, Conflict of Interest, Building Contracts
Arbitration Construction Law Arbiter Disqualification Arbitration Clause Conflict of Interest Building Contracts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Halliday

Pursuer (plaintiff)

Trustees of the Duke of Hamilton

Defenders (defendants)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employers' engineer, named as arbiter in the contract, was disqualified from acting as arbiter due to having expressed opinions on the dispute in correspondence with his employers.

Ratio Decidendi

The arbiters (engineers) were not disqualified from acting as arbiters because their expressions of opinion were made in their capacity as advisers to the employers during negotiations and not as arbiters. Such communications were contemplated by the contract, and there was no evidence of bias or pre-judgment that would prevent them from acting impartially if and when a formal reference was made.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to.

Orders

  • Found that the arbiter was not disqualified from acting.
  • Repelled the pursuer's plea of disqualification.