218 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEES 



amount of the costs of and incident to the award, including 

 with my own costs as umpire the costs of the said ... as 

 arbitrators, at the sum of <333 lls. 9d., which costs I further 

 award, adjudge, and direct, shall be paid to me at ... upon 

 taking up this my award." In giving judgment, Mr. Justice 

 Wills said : " I feel very strongly that although it is quite 

 possible that the sum awarded for costs may be explained as 

 being quite reasonable, it cannot be right conduct on the part 

 of an umpire, however bond fide he may be, to render it 

 impossible to say how much he was awarding to himself for 

 costs, and how much to the arbitrators. It is known, or, at 

 any rate, I, with my experience, know, that it is the practice 

 of certain arbitrators, especially arbitrators of a profession 

 which shall be nameless, to value their services very highly, 

 and to charge for their services fees considerably higher than 

 the fees charged by members of the legal profession. I am 

 not suggesting that my remarks apply to the case before me, 

 but I am quite satisfied that it cannot be proper conduct for 

 an umpire to mix up the costs in such a manner as to prevent 

 the amount of his charges being known. The award must be 

 sent back to the umpire." The profession to which the 

 learned judge was alluding was probably the engineering 

 profession, the members of which will be well advised to state 

 the amount of their fees, making quite clear the amount 

 which is to be allotted to the arbitrators and the umpire. 



22. Fees should not be exorbitant. Though an arbitrator 

 may fix his own charges, he is not at liberty to fix an exor- 

 bitant sum. If he does so, and a party in order to take up 

 the award is obliged to pay, or pays involuntarily, such 

 unreasonable amount, the party may recover the overcharge 

 by action for money had and received ; for, the money being 

 extorted under a species of duress contrary to the law, an 

 action lies to recover the excess (Fernley v. Branson, 1851, 

 20 L. J. Q. B. 178). The Court, however, has no summary 

 jurisdiction over an arbitrator to compel him to submit his 

 costs to taxation, or to compel him by attachment to refund 

 the amount received by him beyond what is allowed on taxa- 

 tion (Dossett v. Gingell, 1841, 2 M. & G. 870). 



As between the parties to the arbitration, however, the 

 Court will consider the question whether the arbitrator's fees 

 are excessive. So, if one of the parties has paid an excessive 



