ARBITRATION ACT.

Press, Volume L, Issue 149814, 30 May 1914, Page 6

ARBITRATION ACT.

DEFINITION OF A SUBMISSION

"A STARTLING FIND."

(srrcrAL to "the tress.")

DUNut/iiN, May 29.

An important judgment was given today by Mr Justico Sim m the matter of an application under section 6 of the Arbitration Act, Tjuc, for the appointment of an umpire.

His Honour said: —A serious alteration has been mado by the Act o£ 1003 in the definition of a suomission. in order to make 1 tho matter clear, 1 shall quote, first, tho definition of submissiou contained in tho Act of lt>«" } which is tho same as that contained m the English Act —"submission means a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration, whether an arbitrator is named therein or not." This is the definition concerned in the Act of 1908—"submission means a. written agreement to suomit present or future differences to arbitration, whethor an aroicraior is named therein or not, or unacr which any question or matter is to be decided by ono or more 'persons to bo appointed by tho contracting parties, or by some person named in the agreement." Theso additional words alter considerably the scope of tho Act, and tiiey appoar to bring under its provisions all written agreements for valuations. Iv every such caso some question or matter is to bo decided by some person named in the agreement, or by one or more persons to be appointed by tne contracting parties. The ■ view that a written agreement for a valuation is now a submission for the purposes of tho Act, is supported by the Act already mentioned, as in that Act tho term arbitration is defined by the interpretation clause so as to includo a valuer. It seems to mo, therefore, that I must givo'effect to this enlarged definition of a submission, and hold tho reference iv the present caso to bo a submission for tho purposes of the Act, although tho parties may have contemplated nothing more than a valuation. The result is that unless otherwise agreed, tho refcrenco must be conducted as an arbitration under tho provisions of the Act, and it is not necessary for tho umpire to be himself'a valuer. It is rather startling to find, that such a change as this in the law should have been effected in the guiso of consolidation. It is not referred to in the final report of tne Consolidation Commissioners, and this fact suggests that this chango was made without their knowledge. This suggestion is confirmed by the fact that in section 6 of the Act of 1908, which reproduces section 7 of the Act of tho provision for the appointment by the Courjb of a third arbitrator' has been dropped out. This cannot have been accidental, because tho expression "third arbitrator" is used several times in section 7. The omission must have been made deliberately, and by some person who was so ignorant of the subject of arbitration as not to know tho difference between an umpire and a third arbitrator. He thought, apparently, that a third arbitrator was only an umpire, and that tne provision in tho English Act and tho New Zealand Act for the appointment of a third arbitrator wils only so much verbiago, which might safely be discarded. The report mado by the Commissioners on July 28th. 1908, throws an interesting light on the question of tho authorship of this change. Tho Arbitration Act evidently must have been included in that volume of Consolidated Statutes which was sought to be imposed on ~ie Commissioners at the outset of their labours. This, they say, was more \n the-nature of a code than a consolidation, aud entangled them in much, needless labour. They had to spend much time and trouble in-revising and restoring the text of the Acts. ° Tho present condition of the Arbitration Acfc shows plainly that their efforts in this direction wero not always successful. How many more similar improvements have been made surreptitiously in the statute law of tho land urnc alone will disclose.