ARBITRATIONS AND AWAKDS 219 



claim for the arbitrator's charges on taking up the award, and 

 he is entitled to the costs of the award, he is not entitled to 

 recover from the opposite party more than a reasonable sum 

 for the arbitrator's fee, and the master on taxation between 

 party and party may tax off the excess. In such a case the 

 party must resort to his remedy by action against the arbi- 

 trator to recover the difference between the amount paid and 

 the amount allowed on taxation. 



23. What fees an engineer arbitrator may charge. As to 

 the amount which an engineer is entitled to charge for his 

 services as arbitrator, this appears to be a question of degree, 

 and one which must be settled in reference to the particular 

 facts of the case, and the question whether the engineer is 

 called upon to travel far. In the case of Re Westwood, 1886, 

 2 T. L. R. 667, a fee of ten guineas a day was considered 

 reasonable ; but matters have advanced since that date, and 

 the Court will now refuse to interfere and quite rightly 

 when arbitrators allow themselves very much higher fees. 



In one case the fees of two arbitrators and an umpire 

 amounted to <476 12s. The actual hearing of the arbitra- 

 tion lasted two days, for which the contractors charged 25 

 guineas a day, and the umpire, besides being present at the 

 arbitration, went down to Wales and spent a day in viewing 

 the waterworks which were the subject-matter of the arbitra- 

 tion. The taxing master disallowed 119 5s. It was held 

 by the Court of Appeal that all the fees should be allowed 

 (Llandrindod Wells Water Co. v. Hawksley, 1904, 20 T. L. K. 

 241). 



In giving judgment the Master of the Rolls said: "The 

 parties must be taken to have known the position of the 

 persons they chose, and as they refrained from making any 

 special bargain with them, they must be taken to have intended 

 the natural result of employing gentlemen of such eminence 

 viz., that they would not be paid at the ordinary rate for 

 persons of less experience. Prima facie a court of law is not 

 the proper tribunal for determining the amount of remunera- 

 tion to be paid in such a case. The question could only be 

 brought before the Court by making a charge in the nature of 

 extortion. The plaintiffs relied on the bill of costs drawn up 

 as between them and the district council and the certificate 

 of the taxing master. Those matters, however, were res inter 



