Robinson v Moody
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1994 |
| Date | 27 January 1994 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Evans and Lord Justice Roch
Agricultural holdings - arbitration - date of appointment of arbitrator
The actual date on which an arbitrator could be said to have been appointed for the purposes of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 depended primarily on the facts of each case. Clear evidence of receipt and acceptance by the arbitrator of a letter of appointment from both parties was sufficient and no written notification of his willingness to act was required.
The Court of Appeal so held allowing an interlocutory appeal by a tenant, Mr Charles D Robinson, from the decision of Mr Assistant Recorder Matthews in Gainsborough County Court in November 1992 in favour of a landlord, Mr John Moody, that the appointment of an arbitrator was invalid under article 10(a) of the Agricultural Holdings (Arbitration on Notices) Order (SI 1987 No 710).
Miss Joanne Moss for the tenant; Mr Keith Rowley for the landlord.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY said that by a counter-notice served on March 12, 1992 the tenant of an agricultural holding contested a notice to quit and required the issues to be determined by arbitration.
By article 10(a) of the 1987 Order that counter-notice ceased to be effective three months after the date of its service unless by that time an arbitrator had been appointed.
On June 10, 1992, both the landlord and the tenant, acting through solicitors, signed a document nominating a named person to act as the arbitrator and inviting him to do so. That document was received by the arbitrator on June 11 when he wrote to the solicitors of both parties notifying them of his acceptance. By June 15 both solicitors had received the notification.
The recorder held that the latest date for a valid appointment was June 12 and that the arbitrator was not duly appointed until June 15 when the notification of his acceptance was actually known to both parties.
Miss Moss submitted that the matter had to be viewed in a contractual setting. The date of the appointment, she said, was the date on which the arbitrator accepted the invitation to act so that in accordance with normal principles...
To continue reading
Request your trial