Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration pp 86–100Cite as

The sources and limits of the arbitrator’s powers in England

  • Chapter

Abstract

The sources, extent and limits of the powers of an arbitrator can be considered under three heads, namely:

  1. 1

    jurisdiction;

  2. 2

    procedural and interlocutory powers; and

  3. 3

    powers in relation to the award.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Pioneer Shipping Ltd v BTP Tioxide [1982] AC 724; Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Redenerna AB [1985] AC 191.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB [1985] AC 191, at 206.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ibid, at 203.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arbitration Act 1979, sl(l).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid, sl(5).

    Google Scholar 

  6. [1981] AC 909.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ibid, at 987.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid, at 983–4.

    Google Scholar 

  9. [1910] 2 KB 738, at 745.

    Google Scholar 

  10. [1951] 1KB 240.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ibid, at 262.

    Google Scholar 

  12. [1953] 1 QB 704, at 708.

    Google Scholar 

  13. [1981] AC 909, at 985.

    Google Scholar 

  14. The Law and Practice of Commercial Arbitration in England (1982 Butterworths), at 241.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  16. [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 16, at 18.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See for example, Nova (Jersey) Knit Limited v Kamngarn Spinnerei GmbH [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 453.

    Google Scholar 

  18. [1942] AC 356, at 392.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Astro Vencedor Compania Naviera SA v Mabanaft GmbH [1971] 2 QB 588.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1941] AC 108, at 137.

    Google Scholar 

  21. [1984] QB 291.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid, at 310–18.

    Google Scholar 

  23. (1924) 18 L1LR 148.

    Google Scholar 

  24. (1930) 37 L1LR 249.

    Google Scholar 

  25. [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 197. This decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal at [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 367.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ibid, at 202.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mustill & Boyd, op cit, at 296.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ibid, at 298, 301–2.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rules of the Supreme Court, Order 14, Rule 4(3).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Arbitration Act 1950, Section 12(1).

    Google Scholar 

  31. The Anangel Peace [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 452.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Arbitration Ordinance, s6 B(l).

    Google Scholar 

  33. [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 257.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ibid, at 264.

    Google Scholar 

  35. [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 357.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ibid, at 362.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mustill & Boyd, op cit, at 605–17.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ibid, at 311–12.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Agroexport v NV Goorden Import SA [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 319.

    Google Scholar 

  40. The Government of Ceylon v Chandris [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 214.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Faure Fairclough v Premier Oil and Cake Mills Limited [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 237.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fox v P G Wellfair [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 514.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Chandris v Isbrandtsen-Moller [1951] 1 KB 240 at 262, per Tucker LJ.

    Google Scholar 

  44. [1976] AC 443.

    Google Scholar 

  45. [1974] QB 292.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ibid, at 299.

    Google Scholar 

  47. [1985] AC 104.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ibid, at 119.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Matheson &Co v A Tabah & Sons [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 270.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Arbitration Act 1950, sl7.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ibid, s18(4).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Kenneth S. Rokison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary College, University of London, UK

    Julian D. M. Lew (Head of the School of International Arbitration) (Head of the School of International Arbitration)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1987 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rokison, K.S. (1987). The sources and limits of the arbitrator’s powers in England. In: Lew, J.D.M. (eds) Contemporary Problems in International Arbitration. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1156-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1156-2_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-89838-926-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1156-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation