CHAP. III. Compensation, &c., under R. C. C. Act, 1845. Light Under Act, 1845. practical value. An arbitration under the L. C. C. Act, 1845, settles the amount of compensation only, and not the liability of the parties. If the defendant refuses to pay the amount awarded, on the ground of non-liability, the plaintiff must enforce his claim by action, and not by summons under the Arbitration Act to enforce the award. (Re Newbold and Metropolitan Rail. Co., 14 C. B., N. S. 405; Beckett v. Midland Rail. Co., L. R., 1 C. P. 241; 35 L. J., C. P. 163; Brandon v. Brandon, 34 L. J., Ch. 333; 2 Dr. & Sm. 305.) By the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, s. 44), compensation for land taken or used for the purpose of any railway, or injuriously affected by its construction, and for damages in respect. of such land, are to be ascertained in the manner provided by the L. C. C. Act, 1845. The Railways Clauses Act, 1845, also provides for certain matters therein mentioned, such as the compensation to be paid for injury done to mines not taken by the company (s. 81), or differences respecting the fitness of engines (s. 115) or construction of carriages (s. 117) of strangers intended to be run upon the line of the company being referred to arbitration under provisions contained in the Act (ss. 126-137; Browne & Allan on Compensation, 371 et seq.). By the Light Railways Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c 48, s. 13), where any order under the Act incorporates the Lands Clauses Acts, any matter which under those Acts might be determined by a jury, arbitration, or justices, shall be determined by a single arbitrator appointed by the parties, or, if they cannot agree, by the Board of Trade. Disputes authorized by any Act incorporating the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. 16), to be settled by arbitration, may be so settled in accordance with the provisions contained in that Act (ss. 128-134). between By the Railway Companies Arbitration Act, 1859 CHAP. III. (22 & 23 Vict. c. 59), railway companies are empowered Differences to refer to arbitration matters in which they are mutually railway interested, and which they might lawfully settle amongst companies. themselves (s. 2). And the Act contains detailed provisions as to the mode of carrying out the reference. By the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 48), where any difference between railway and canal companies is, under the provisions of any general or special Act, required or authorized to be referred to arbitration, such difference shall, at the instance of any company party to the difference, and with the consent of the Railway Commissioners, be referred to the Commissioners for their decision instead of being referred to arbitration (s. 8). This does not apply where there is an agreement between the parties by which they stipulate for a particular mode of reference, but only where the arbitration is imposed upon the parties by statute (Great Western Rail. Co. v. Waterford and Limerick Rail. Co., 50 L. J., Ch. 513; 17 Ch. D. 493; Halesowen Rail. Co. v. Great Western Rail. Co., 48 L. T. 710; 52 L. J., Q. B. 473); nor does it apply where there is an agreement to refer which is afterwards scheduled to a private Act and confirmed. (Reg. v. Midland Rail. Co., 19 Q. B. D. 540; 56 L. J., Q. B. 585.) By the Board of Trade Arbitration, &c., Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 40), differences between railway and canal companies required or authorized under the provisions of any general or special Act to be referred to the Board of Trade, or some person appointed by the Board of Trade, may, by order under the hand of the president or one of the secretaries of the Board, be referred to the Railway Commissioners (s. 6). This does not apply to the appointment of an umpire under section 28 of the L. C. C. Act, 1845. By the Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), The CHAP. III. The Tramways companies governed by that Act are empowered to refer disputes with other companies or persons to arbitration, in accordance with the Railway Companies Arbitration Act, 1859 (ss. 72, 73). In the case of a voluntary winding up of a company the liquidator may, with the sanction of a special resolution, transfer the business of the company to another company, in consideration of shares, &c., in such other company; but before carrying such resolution into effect the liquidator must purchase the interest of any dissentient member (s. 161), the price of such interest, in case the parties differ, to be settled by arbitration; and for the purposes of such arbitration the provisions of the L. C. C. Act, 1845, shall apply (s. 162; Re Mysore West Gold Mining Co., 42 Ch. D. 535; 61 L. T. 453) unless the articles of association contain provisions for arbitration. (De Rosaz v. AngloItalian Bank, 38 L. J., Q. B. 161; L. R., 4 Q. B. 462.) The shareholders cannot be deprived of their right of arbitration under the section by a clause in the articles of association purporting to exclude that right. (BaringGould v. Sharpington, &c. Syndicate [1899] 2 Ch. 80; Payne v. Cork Co. [1900] 1 Ch. 308.) Under the Tramways Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 78), differences between the promoters or lessees of a tramway, on the one hand, and any local authority or road authority, or any gas or water company, or any company, body, or person to whom any sewer, drain, tube, wires, or apparatus for telegraphic or other purposes may belong, or any other company, on the other hand, with respect to any interference or control exercised or claimed to be exercised in relation to any tramway or work, or the mode of executing any work, or the amount of compensation, or with respect to ny other thing regulated by or comprised in the Act, shall (unless by the Act otherwise provided) be settled by a person nominated as referee by the Board of Trade, and the 31 costs of the reference paid as the referee directs. (S. 33; Reg. v. Croydon and Norwood Tramways Co., 18 Q. B. D. 39; 56 L. J., Q. B. 125; Bristol Trams and Carriage Co. v. Mayor of Bristol, 25 Q. B. D. 427; 63 L. T. 177.) СНАР. ІІІ. 1875. The Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 55), The Public provides by section 308 that, where any person sustains Health Act, any damage by reason of the exercise of any of the powers of the Act (Burgess v. Northwich Local Board, 50 L. J., C. P. 219; 6 Q. B. D. 264; Lumley, Public Health, 402) in relation to any matter as to which he is not himself in default, full compensation shall be made to such person by the local authority exercising such powers, and any dispute as to the fact of damage or amount of compensation shall be settled by arbitration in manner provided by sections 179-181 of the Act, unless the compensation claimed does not exceed 201., when the same may, at the option of either party, be ascertained before a court of summary jurisdiction. This does not apply where land is taken compulsorily, in which case the compensation is to be settled according to the provisions of the L. C. C. Act, 1845. (S. 176; Ex parte Rayner, 3 Q. B. D. 446 47 L. J., Q. B. 660.) The arbitrator under this Act, like an arbitrator under the L. C. C. Act, 1845 (ante, p. 28), can only settle the amount of compensation, and cannot determine the liability of the local authority. (The Queen v. Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers, 22 L. J., Q. B. 234; 1 E. & B. 694; Re Bradby, 24 L. J., Q. B. 239.) But a person who claims compensation is entitled to have the amount determined by arbitration, notwithstanding the authority deny their liability, the determination of the question of liability not being a condition precedent to the arbitration; the local authority must raise the question of liability in their defence to an action on the award. (Brierley Hill Local Board v. Pearsall, CHAP. III. The Allotments Local Local Government 9 App. Cas. 595; 54 L. J., Q. B. 25; Bradford Local Board v. Hopwood, 6 W. R. 818.) Under section 150 of the Act, where there is a dispute as to the apportionment and not otherwise (Sandgate District Local Board v. Keene [1892] 1 Q. B. 831; Mayor of West Hartlepool v. Robinson, 77 L. T. 387; 46 W. R. 218), it may be referred to arbitration to fix the proportion of paving expenses payable by an owner of premises to the local authority. But the award is only enforceable by summary proceedings in the manner pointed out by that section. (Re Willesden Local Board and Wright [1896] 2 Q. B. 412; 44 W. R. 676.) The Allotments Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 48), enables sanitary authorities to acquire land for allotments, and provides that any question of disputed compensation shall be referred to a single arbitrator appointed by the parties, or, in case they do not agree, by the Local Government Board (s. 3, sub-s. 4). Under the Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41), questions between a county council and an urban authority as to the annual sum to be paid by the former to the latter towards the maintenance of main roads, or between a county council and a district council as to the sum to be paid for such maintenance (s. 11, sub-ss. 3, 4, 6, 9), may be determined by the Local Government Board, either as arbitrators or otherwise, at the option of the Board (59 & 60 Vict. c. 9, s. 1); while other questions between a county council and local authorities are to be decided by the Board as arbitrators pursuant to the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868. (51 & 52 Vict. c. 41, s. 63; Re County Council of Kent and Sandgate Local Board [1895] 2 Q. B. 43.) The Local Government Act, 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), s. 68, provides that where an adjustment is required for the purposes of the Act or of any order or thing done under the Act, then if the adjustment is not otherwise |