Black v. John Williams & Co. (Wishaw), Ltd [1923] ScotLR 330 (22 February 1923)

Black v. John Williams & Co. (Wishaw), Ltd [1923] ScotLR 330 (22 February 1923)

Although the arbiter's procedure in examining witnesses outwith the presence of the parties was irregular and contrary to good practice, the absence of any evidence of injustice or prejudice to the parties meant that the irregularity did not vitiate the award. The essential test is whether substantial justice was done, not mere procedural formality.

Citation
[1923] ScotLR 330
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: William Black; Defender/reclaimer: John Williams & Company (Wishaw), Limited; Defender/arbiter: William M'Ghie
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 February 1923
Procedural Posture
Civil (arbitration Reduction of Award) / Appeal (reclaiming Note) in Inner House, First Division
Outcome
appeal allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; defenders assoilzied (absolved)
Legal Topics
Arbitral Procedure, Reduction of Award, Examination of Witnesses, Natural Justice, Procedural Irregularity
Arbitration Civil Procedure Arbitral Procedure Reduction of Award Examination of Witnesses Natural Justice Procedural Irregularity

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Black

Pursuer/respondent

John Williams & Company (Wishaw), Limited

Defender/reclaimer

William M'Ghie

Defender/arbiter

Procedural Posture

Civil (arbitration Reduction of Award) / Appeal (reclaiming Note) in Inner House, First Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an arbitral award is invalidated by the arbiter's irregular procedure in examining witnesses outwith the presence of parties or their representatives.
  2. 2 Whether absence of injustice can cure procedural irregularity in arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi

Although the arbiter's procedure in examining witnesses outwith the presence of the parties was irregular and contrary to good practice, the absence of any evidence of injustice or prejudice to the parties meant that the irregularity did not vitiate the award. The essential test is whether substantial justice was done, not mere procedural formality.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary recalled; defenders assoilzied (absolved)

Orders

  • The interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary reducing the award is recalled.
  • The defenders are assoilzied (absolved) from the conclusions of the action.