AKBITKATIONS AND AWAKDS 213 



Court has to be satisfied according to the varying terms of each 

 particular case ; " that there is no sufficient reason why the 

 matter should not be referred in accordance with the sub- 

 mission" (Vawdrey v. Simpson, 1896, 1 Ch. 166). The mere 

 fact, however, that the point at issue is one of law which can 

 be more conveniently settled by the Court is not (as we have 

 seen, 8, supra) of itself sufficient to make the Court stay an 

 action (Barnes v. Youngs, 1898, 1 Ch. 414). Nevertheless, 

 actions have been stayed on this ground (see, e.g., Re Carlisle, 

 Clegg v. Clegg, 44 Ch. D. 200). The law was thus summarised 

 in Workman v. Belfast Harbour Commissioners, 1899, 2 Ir. K. 

 234 : " The Court will not stay the action when it is of opinion 

 (1) that the plaintiff is suing upon substantial and bo?id fide 

 causes of action which do not come within the clause ; or (2) 

 that there are serious and difficult questions of law involved 

 in the action not proper to be submitted to the determination 

 of an arbitrator ; or (3) that a cause of action based upon fraud 

 actual or constructive, is bond fide sued upon ; or (4) that, in 

 the exercise of its judicial discretion, it ought not to refer the 

 matters in dispute to arbitration. Where the matters in 

 dispute had been agreed to be referred to the engineer of one 

 party, the other objected to proceed to arbitration, and sought 

 to enforce his remedy by action on the ground that the engi- 

 neer was in substance a judge in his own cause. The Court, 

 however, stayed the action, and allowed the arbitration to pro- 

 ceed (Ires v. Willans, 1894, 2 Ch. 478). Eeferring to the 

 arbitration clause, by which the contractors had bound them- 

 selves to abide by the decision of the engineer, Lindley, L.J., 

 said : " How does it happen that a man will agree to be bound 

 by such a very stringent provision ? The explanation of it is 

 to be found in two circumstances. First of all, competition for 

 this kind of work is very keen, and contractors compete with 

 each other ; and in the second place, it has been ascertained 

 by long experience that engineers of the highest character 

 may be trusted, and, when a contractor enters into such a 

 very stringent provision as this, he knows the man he has to 

 deal with. I take it that a contractor such as Mr. Willans 

 would not submit to be bound by a clause of that kind unless 

 he had confidence in the engineers, and unless the engineers 

 were persons of the highest character. If he had not confi- 

 dence he would not submit to it ; but knowing the engineers, 

 he does submit to it, because he has confidence in them and 



