232 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEEKS 



Arbitrators may be compelled to state a case, and where 

 the terms of a reference provide that a named person shall be 

 arbitrator, and that his decision "shall be final," the arbitrator 

 is not precluded from stating a special case for the opinion 

 of the Court (In re Carpenter and Bristol Corporation, 1907, 

 76 L. J. K. B. 145). An arbitrator cannot, however, state a 

 special case under s. 19 after he has made his award, nor can 

 the Court order him to do so after that event (In re Palmer and 

 Hoskin, 1898, 1 Q. B. 131). 



37. Requisites of a special case. When an arbitrator states 

 a special case, involving a question of law for the adjudication 

 of the Court, it is his duty to set forth such facts as are 

 necessary to enable the Court to determine the question of 

 law (Sheridan v. Nagle, 1872, 6 Ir. B. C. L. 110). In one 

 case where the arbitrator set out a long and rambling state- 

 ment of the evidence, leaving the Court to draw inferences of 

 fact, this was held not to be a due exercise by the arbitrator 

 of the powers entrusted to him (Jephson v. Hawkins, 2 Scott, 

 N. B. 605). 



It is necessary, however, to point out that there are a 

 number of cases in which the Court will interfere, even when 

 the parties have chosen an arbitrator as their own peculiar 

 forum. 



Broadly speaking, an award by consent may be impeached : 



(a) If the arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction (Harrison v. 

 Eaton, 1884, 51 L. T. 846). 



(b) If there is a mistake which is apparent on the face of the 

 award. As a general rule, however, a mistake will be cured 

 by the award being remitted to the arbitrator (Sharman v. Bell, 

 1816, 5 M. & S. 504). 



Thus in a recent case (In re Baxters and Midland Illy. 

 Co., 1906, 70 J. P. 445) an arbitrator, acting under an 

 erroneous impression that costs would follow the event, 

 omitted to make any mention of them in his award. It was 

 held that as this was a mere mistake, the award ought to be 

 remitted to the arbitrator for him to deal with the question 

 of costs. 



Again, where an arbitrator has gone wrong in a point of 

 law, and his error in law appears on the face of the award, 

 this is good ground for setting it aside (Landauer v. Asser, 

 1905, 53 W. B. 534). 



