AEBITEATIONS AND AWARDS 211 



It is established that on grounds of public policy, any agree- 

 ment to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts is void. These 

 views were expressed by Sir George Jessel in the case of 

 Eipley v. Great Northern Railway, 1875, 31 L. T. 869. 



" But," it may be asked, " how is this statement of the law 

 compatible with what now appears in the Arbitration Act, 

 namely, the power which the Courts have to compel parties to 

 go to arbitration?" A little reflection will show that the 

 jurisdiction of the Court is not really ousted. It is merely 

 provided that before seeking a remedy at law the parties have 

 an opportunity of referring to their own tribunal, and an 

 absolute discretion is reserved to the Court to say whether the 

 case is one for arbitration or not. 



The way in which an arbitration clause may be a condition 

 precedent is well illustrated by the case of Westwood v. 

 Secretary of State for India, 1863, 1 N. E. 262. There a 

 contract contained a clause that the engineer for the time 

 being should have power to make such additions to or 

 deductions from the work as he might think proper, and to 

 make such alterations and deviations as he might judge 

 expedient during the progress of the work ; and if by reason 

 thereof he should consider it necessary to extend the time for 

 the completion of the work, or otherwise, the time for com- 

 pletion should be deemed to be so extended; and that the 

 value of all such additions, deductions and deviations should 

 be ascertained and added to or deducted from the amount of 

 the contract price ; that in the event of the contractors failing 

 to complete their work within the specified time they should 

 pay <5 as liquidated damages for each day between the day 

 specified for completion and the day when the work should be 

 completed and ready for delivery. It further provided that if 

 any doubt, dispute, or difference should arise concerning the 

 work or relating to the quantity or quality of the materials 

 employed, or as to any additions, alterations, deductions or 

 deviations made to, in or from the work, the same should from 

 time to time be referred to and decided by the engineer, whose 

 decision should be final and binding on both parties. The 

 defendant, by directing extra work, rendered the performance 

 of the contract by the contractors within the stipulated time 

 impossible. In an action to recover the amount of extra work, 

 it was held that the ascertainment of the value of the extra 

 works, that is to say, an inquiry in the nature of an arbitration, 



P2 



