M'Connell & Reid v. Smith [1911] ScotLR 564 (07 March 1911)
The contract did not provide the defender with reasonable notice that disputes would be subject to arbitration, and thus did not oust the jurisdiction of the courts. The arbitration clause was not binding on the defender, and the action to enforce the incomplete arbitral award was incompetent.
- Citation
- [1911] ScotLR 564
- Parties
- Pursuer: M'Connell & Reid; Defender: Robert Smith
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judgment Date
- 07 March 1911
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House Second Division
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses, Notice of Contract Terms, Competency of Arbitral Awards, Ouster of Court Jurisdiction
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
M'Connell & Reid
Pursuer
Robert Smith
Defender
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a side-note referencing arbitration rules in a sale-note gives sufficient notice to bind a non-member purchaser to arbitration and oust court jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether an action to enforce an incomplete arbitral award is competent.
Ratio Decidendi
The contract did not provide the defender with reasonable notice that disputes would be subject to arbitration, and thus did not oust the jurisdiction of the courts. The arbitration clause was not binding on the defender, and the action to enforce the incomplete arbitral award was incompetent.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Interlocutor appealed against affirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment