134

Quebec. —An award in an arbitration held in the United Kingdom would be treated in the Province as- an ordinary contract between the parties, and would be enforceable there by an action at law if, and to the same extent as, an ordinary contract of the same kind would be. The manner of the enforcement, whether by damages or specific performance, would depend upon circumstances. Saskatchewan.—lt is considered that such an award as that referred to_ may, under any of the circumstances set forth in the question, be enforced in the Province either by action, or—if the agreement provides that the award shall be deemed to be an award made under the Arbitration Ordinance of the Province —as an award on a submission under the said Ordinance. Yukon Territory.—ln section 13 of Chapter 32 of the Consolidated Ordinances of the Yukon Territory, entitled " An Ordinance respecting Arbitration,' , it is provided that " an award on a submission may, by leave of the court " or a judge, be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order to the " same effect." Australia : Queensland. — Vide the answer to Question I. New South Wales. — Vide the answer to Question I. Victoria. —With reference to sub-question (a) as to enforcing the award, it is thought that, assuming the defendant to be within the jurisdiction, an award in an arbitration held in the United Kingdom can be sued upon in Victoria, in the same way as an award could be sued upon in that State in the case of an award made there by an arbitration in the State. With regard to the method of enforcing the award, where it is given in the United Kingdom, the remedy would probably be confined to suing upon the award in an ordinary action. An award is founded on a contract, and a contract is enforceable in the State courts, provided that the party against whom it is desired to enforce it is within their jurisdiction. Under the Victoria Supreme Court Act provision is made for an agreement or submission to arbitration by consent being made a rule of the Supreme Court, and it could be urged that resort might be had to this provision with a view to making a submission, which provides for an award in the United Kingdom, a rule of the State Supreme Court. This position would depend on the construction of the several sections of Part V., Division 4, of the Victoria Supreme Court Act, 1890 (No. 1,142), which deal with arbitration. Reference may be made in particular, to section 160 of that Act, which is founded on an Imperial Act, 17 & 18 Vict. cap. 125, section 17 (Common Law Procedure Act, 1854). This section provides that " every " agreement or submission to arbitration by consent, whether by deed or " instrument in writing, not under seal, may be made a rule of court on " the application of any party thereto, unless such agreement or submission " contain words purporting that the parties intend that it should not be " made a rule of court." It is thought that this section is to be read as applicable only to an agreement or submission to arbitration by consent in Victoria. The local legislature might have power to enact that the State Supreme Court should be available in respect of submissions made abroad, but (if the question is intended to apply to such submissions) Acts of a subordinate legislature are primd facie construed as concerned with matters occurring within its jurisdiction. Though in this case the section may possibly not be repugnant to any doctrine canvassed by the Privy Council in the case of MacLeod v. The Attorney-General in New South Wales (reported 1891, Ap. Cs. 455), the court, at first impression at least, would probably regard the section as limited to agreements or submissions by consent entered into in Victoria. The section above referred to proceeds, however, to enact that every award made in pursuance of any such agreement may be proceeded on, set aside, and enforced in the same manner as an award made in pursuance of a submission containing an agreement that the same may be made a rule of the court could, at the date of the Act, be proceeded on, set aside, and