Gibsons v. Fotheringham [1914] ScotLR 754 (24 June 1914)

Gibsons v. Fotheringham [1914] ScotLR 754 (24 June 1914)

The awards by the oversman were valid as there was sufficient evidence of disagreement between the arbiters, justifying devolution to the oversman; formal written devolution was unnecessary; partial devolutions were competent; and the oversman's incorporation of arbiters' prior decisions did not invalidate the awards. Deadlock on procedure sufficed for devolution even if one arbiter dissented.

Citation
[1914] ScotLR 754
Parties
Pursuers: Miss Jane Elizabeth Gibson and others; Defender (compearing): Alexander Fotheringham; Defender: Charles Cargill; Defender: John Milne; Defender/oversman: James Ebenezer Esslemont
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
24 June 1914
Procedural Posture
Civil (arbitration/reduction and Payment) / Inner House, Second Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Decision
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor affirmed; awards upheld.
Legal Topics
Arbitration Procedure, Devolution to Oversman, Validity of Arbitral Awards, Lease Valuation, Deadlock in Arbitration
Arbitration Land Law Contract Law Arbitration Procedure Devolution to Oversman Validity of Arbitral Awards Lease Valuation Deadlock in Arbitration

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Jane Elizabeth Gibson and others

Pursuers

Alexander Fotheringham

Defender (compearing)

Charles Cargill

Defender

John Milne

Defender

James Ebenezer Esslemont

Defender/oversman

Procedural Posture

Civil (arbitration/reduction and Payment) / Inner House, Second Division, Reclaiming Motion (appeal) Against Lord Ordinary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the awards by the oversman were valid despite lack of formal minute of devolution and partial devolutions by arbiters
  2. 2 Whether an award is valid if it incorporates previous decisions by arbiters
  3. 3 Whether a deadlock on procedure justifies devolution to oversman despite dissent of one arbiter

Ratio Decidendi

The awards by the oversman were valid as there was sufficient evidence of disagreement between the arbiters, justifying devolution to the oversman; formal written devolution was unnecessary; partial devolutions were competent; and the oversman's incorporation of arbiters' prior decisions did not invalidate the awards. Deadlock on procedure sufficed for devolution even if one arbiter dissented.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor affirmed; awards upheld.

Orders

  • Refusal of reduction of the two awards dated 1 August 1913 and 8 January 1914
  • Decree for payment in favour of outgoing tenant (defender)