CHAP. III.

Savings banks.

The Agricul tural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1900.

the Registrar of Friendly Societies, or (3), when the rules so direct, by justices, or, if the parties consent, by the county court (s. 68; and see Bache v. Billingham [1894] 1 Q. B. 107; 63 L. J., M. C. 1). The Act does not apply to disputes as to the title of a person claiming to be a member of the society. (Willis v. Wells [1892] 2 Q. B. 225; 61 L. J., Q. B. 606; Palliser v. Dale [1897] 1 Q. B. 257.) By virtue of 26 & 27 Vict. c. 87, s. 48, and 39 & 40 Vict. c. 52, s. 2, all disputes between the trustees and managers of any savings bank, on the one hand, and any depositor or person claiming through or under a depositor, on the other hand, are to be settled by a reference to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, whose award is final and without appeal. The jurisdiction here given to the Registrar ousts the jurisdiction of the Courts. (Crisp v. Bunbury, 8 Bing. 394.)

Under the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 and 1900 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61; 63 & 64 Vict. c. 50), an agricultural tenant's claims for compensation for improvements, disputed questions as to the value of fixtures removable by the tenant, and the reduction of rent to be allowed to a tenant in respect of land resumed by the landlord, are to be settled by arbitration. (See Redman's Landlord and Tenant, 480 et seq.) Under the Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 26), compensation to the tenants of allotments for crops, fruit trees, labour, manure, and structural improvements may be ascertained by arbitration (s. 7); while the Market Gardeners' Compensation Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 27), enables a market gardener to make the improvements therein mentioned and claim compensation under the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts, 1883 to 1900.

A number of statutes of less general importance provide for the reference of special disputes, but these it is not proposed to notice in detail.

CHAPTER IV.

THE ARBITRATION ACT, 1889.

SECT. 1.-General Effect of the Act.

CHAP. IV.

the Act.

CONSIDERABLE alteration in the law has been effected by the Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 49), which Scope of came into operation on the 1st of January, 1890, rendering obsolete a great deal of the previous learning upon the subject. It is, however, a statute of practice, and does not otherwise affect the rules of law applicable to arbitrations or awards. Its aim was to furnish a more simple code of procedure applicable to all submissions.

common form

In the first place it provides a common form of sub- Provides mission containing most of the usual terms hitherto of submission. inserted in formal submissions (s. 2), and which, in the absence of contrary intention in the submission, are to be implied in all references taking place after the commencement of the Act. (Ante, p. 8.)

with rules

It abolishes the troublesome formality of making a Dispenses submission a rule of court-a step hitherto necessary of court. before any application could be made to set aside or enforce the award-and enacts that a submission shall have the same effect as if it had been made an order of court (s. 1).

to the court.

It simplifies the procedure in applications to the court, Simplifies applications since applications of every description, save one, may be made to the "court or a judge," and, by virtue of section 21 of the Act and R. S. C. Order LIV., r. 12a, this jurisdiction may be exercised by a master upon a summons. The

CHAP. IV.

Attendance

of witnesses.

Correction of clerical error.

Repeal.

Consolidates and amends.

Applicable to all arbitrations.

exception is section 11, whereby the powers to remove an arbitrator or set aside an award can be exercised by the court alone, upon motion.

It has substituted the summoning of witnesses by subpoena instead of by an order for attendance (s. 8), and enables the court or a judge to order a writ of subpoena to issue to compel the attendance of a witness wherever he may be within the United Kingdom (s. 18). This power only existed previously in the case of a reference of an action. (Hall v. Brand, 12 Q. B. D. 39.)

It enables an arbitrator to correct a mere clerical error without the necessity of an application to the court (s. 7, sub-s. (c)), thus abrogating Mordue v. Palmer. (L. R., 6 Ch. 22; 40 L. J., Ch. 8.)

It repeals (s. 26, and see second schedule) all the general statutes as to arbitration, that is to say:-9 Will. 3, c. 15; 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, ss. 39-41; 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125 (C. L. P. Act, 1854), ss. 3-17; 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 56 in part and ss. 57-59; and 47 & 48 Vict. c. 61, ss. 9-11.

Except so far as amended, or rendered obsolete by the alteration in procedure, the repealed statutes, particularly the three last, are re-enacted in substance. It is to be borne in mind, however, that it is an amending, and not merely a consolidating, statute. (Hurlbatt v. Barnett [1893]1 Q. B. 77, 79; 62 L. J., Q. B. 1.) While, therefore, any part of the repealed statutes which are re-enacted in the same terms are to be construed in accordance with the interpretation put upon the previous Acts (Re Keighley Maxsted & Co. and Durant [1893] 1 Q. B. 405, 409; 62 L. J., Q. B. 105), yet, where larger words are used in the amending Act, the courts will assume that the intention was to give to the altered language a wider meaning. (Hurlbatt v. Barnett, supra.)

Above all, the Act was intended to provide a uniform code of procedure applicable to all arbitrations taking place

after the 1st of January, 1890. (Re Williams and Stepney [1891] 2 Q. B. 257.) Accordingly, section 24 enacts that "This Act shall apply to every arbitration under any Act passed before or after the commencement of this Act as if the arbitration were pursuant to a submission, except in so far as this Act is inconsistent with the Act regulating the arbitration, or with any rules or procedure authorized or recognized by that Act."

The test of whether or not there is an inconsistency, is, whether the provisions of this Act can be read into the other Act regulating the arbitration without any conflict between them. (Tabernacle Permanent Building Society v. Knight [1892] A. C. 298, 306; 62 L. J., Q. B. 50; Re Knight and Tabernacle Permanent Building Society [1891] 2 Q. B. 63; 60 L. J., Q. B. 633.)

The effect of the section is merely to apply the arbitration provisions of the Act to arbitrations under other Acts, and not to introduce any of the provisions for arbitration contained in the special Act into references made under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, and which might have been, but are not, made under the special Act. (Zelma Gold Mining Co. v. Hoskins [1895] A. C. 100, 103; 64 L. J., P. C. 45.) Nor does the Act give the court any jurisdiction in references under special statutes which it did not possess before. (Re Gollings and Tradesmen's Friendly Society, 64 L. T. 775.)

Amongst the earlier important Acts to which the Arbitration Act, 1889, may be deemed to apply are the Lands Clauses Act, 1845, the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, and the Public Health Act, 1875 (but not under s. 150, Re Willesden Local Board and Wright [1896] 2 Q. B. 412).

Some Acts passed since the Arbitration Act, 1889, and containing provisions for arbitration, enact that the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall apply; as, for example, the Stannaries Court Abolition Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c.

CHAP. IV.

CHAP. IV.

Crown bound by the Act.

Submission

"same effect '

45, s. 4), and the Light Railways Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 48, s. 13); some that the Act shall not apply, as in the case of the Conciliation Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 30, s. 3), and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict. c. 37, sched. 2, cl. (4)); some that certain provisions of the Act shall not apply, as in the case of the Building Societies Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 47, s. 20), and the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 25, s. 68), which respectively provide that arbitrators shall not be compelled to state a special case; while other Acts are silent, and thus incorporate the Act in its integrity. The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. c. 50), s. 2 (8), leaves the application of the Act a matter of agreement, and enacts that subject to any provision contained in any agreement between landlord and tenant the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply to any arbitration to which that Act applies.

Another alteration made by the Act is to extend its provisions to the Crown. Section 23 enacts :-"This Act shall, except as in this Act expressly mentioned, apply to an arbitration to which Her Majesty the Queen, either in right of the Crown or of the Duchy of Lancaster, or otherwise, or the Duke of Cornwall, is a party, but nothing in this Act shall empower the court or a judge to order any proceedings to which Her Majesty or the Duke of Cornwall is a party, or any question or issue in any such proceedings, to be tried before any referee, arbitrator, or officer, without the consent of Her Majesty or the Duke of Cornwall, as the case may be, or shall affect the law as to costs payable by the Crown."

SECT. 2.-Operation of Act in giving Submission the effect of an Order of Court.

The most far-reaching alteration made by the Act is that effected by section 1, that a submission "shall