In the present case the charter party provided that "should any difference of opinion arise between the parties to this contract, either in principle or in detail, the same shall be referred for arbitration" ete. A difference of opinion arose between the charterers and the owners as to "whether the owners can claim damages or demurrage from the charterers in connection with delay in the discharge of the said cargo at Kowloon;" the charterers contending that they were not liable for the $13,120.00 already paid to the owners under protest, or for any sum, by way of demurrage in connection with delay in the discharge of the cargo, and the owners disputing such contention, In the submission the following two matters were referred to the arbitrator for his determination:
1, Whether demurrage or damages are payable by the Charterers to the Owners in accordance with the terms of the said Charter Party in connection with delay in the said discharge of the said cargo at Kow-Joon and if so the amount of such demurrage or damages.
Whether or not the said amount of Chinese $13,120.00 paid by the Char-lerers to the Owners shall be repaid by the Owners to the Char-torers either wholly or in part and with or without Interests and if With interest at what rate and for what period."
To which of the two classes of cases mentioned above does the present reference belong? Is it a reference in which a specific question of law was referred to the decision of the arbitrator as the sole tribunal, or is it a reference of matters in dispute in the decision of which a question of law became material?
In my judgment the reference here falls within the first of the two classes in which a specific question of law was referred, so that the Court cannot interfere. There was here an express submission of the true effect of the terms of the Charter Party as a distinct matter, on facts which were either admitted by the parties or to be separately found by the arbitrator. In this respect I am of the opinion that the present case is similar to In re King and Duveen
(1913) 2 K.B. 32.
I may add that had I arrived at a different conclusion and found the reference to fall within the second of the two classes of cases mentioned above, I should not have been prepared to set aside the award of the arbitrator in this case, For in my opinion that award is not on the face of it either inconsistent or erroneous in matter of law, as was contended at the hearing on behalf of the owners, The motion is dismissed with costs.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.