Miller v. Oliver & Boyd [1903] ScotLR 41_26 (10 November 1903)

Miller v. Oliver & Boyd [1903] ScotLR 41_26 (10 November 1903)

The arbitral award was invalid because it failed to specify which claims were sustained and to what extent, making it impossible to determine if the arbiter had exhausted the reference. The inclusion of mutual discharges and penalty clauses was ultra vires and inseparable from the rest of the award. Parole evidence from the arbiter could not cure these defects. The entire award was therefore set aside.

Citation
[1903] ScotLR 41_26
Parties
Pursuer: J. Miller & Son and Andrew Carruthers Miller; Defender: Oliver & Boyd; Arbiter: Charles Ritchie, S.S.C.
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
10 November 1903
Procedural Posture
Action for Reduction of Arbitral Award / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) in the Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
Award set aside in toto; decree of reduction granted as craved.
Legal Topics
Scope of Arbitration Reference, Ultra Vires Award, Separability of Award, Proof and Parole Evidence, Mutual Discharges, Reduction of Decree Arbitral
Arbitration Contract Law Civil Procedure Scope of Arbitration Reference Ultra Vires Award Separability of Award Proof and Parole Evidence Mutual Discharges +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. Miller & Son and Andrew Carruthers Miller

Pursuer

Oliver & Boyd

Defender

Charles Ritchie, S.S.C.

Arbiter

Procedural Posture

Action for Reduction of Arbitral Award / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) in the Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbiter's award was valid given the scope of the reference and the nature of the claims submitted
  2. 2 Whether the award could be partially reduced or must be set aside in toto
  3. 3 Whether parole evidence from the arbiter could be used to explain the award

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitral award was invalid because it failed to specify which claims were sustained and to what extent, making it impossible to determine if the arbiter had exhausted the reference. The inclusion of mutual discharges and penalty clauses was ultra vires and inseparable from the rest of the award. Parole evidence from the arbiter could not cure these defects. The entire award was therefore set aside.

Court Disposition

Award set aside in toto; decree of reduction granted as craved.

Orders

  • Recall of Lord Ordinary's interlocutor
  • Sustain reasons of reduction