{"id":11936,"date":"2019-07-29T12:22:58","date_gmt":"2019-07-29T02:22:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=11936"},"modified":"2024-07-10T04:11:58","modified_gmt":"2024-07-10T04:11:58","slug":"lovedays-to-affirming-the-turkey-commercial-arbitration-down-the-centuries","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2019\/07\/29\/lovedays-to-affirming-the-turkey-commercial-arbitration-down-the-centuries\/","title":{"rendered":"\u00e2\u20ac\u0153Lovedays\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153affirming the turkey\u00e2\u20ac\u009d: Commercial Arbitration Down the Centuries"},"content":{"rendered":"

For over a thousand years \u00e2\u20ac\u201c at least<\/em> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c mediation and arbitration have been practised in the English-speaking world. In fact, arbitration as a dispute settling mechanism is probably as old as human society itself, suggests Tom Bathurst in his survey of the history of arbitration published in the Building and Construction Law Journal <\/em><\/a>(BCL).<\/em><\/p>\n

And arbitration\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s continuing vitality into the future is assured, concludes Bathurst, Chief Justice of NSW, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153regardless of what the legal system says about it\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n

In \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The History of the Law of Commercial Arbitration\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/a> his address to the Francis Forbes Society published in the current issue of BCL (Vol 35 No 1<\/a>), Bathurst considers how the law relating to arbitration has developed to reconcile the two \u00e2\u20ac\u0153alternative\u00e2\u20ac\u009d methods of dispute resolution \u00e2\u20ac\u201c arbitration and the courts.<\/p>\n

In Australia today, both the International Arbitration Act 1974 <\/em>(Cth) and equivalent State legislation apply the UNCITRAL Model Law<\/em> to the arbitrations they cover, respectively: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153international\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153domestic\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. The Model Law<\/em> regime limits the role of courts in resolving disputes subject to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153commercial arbitration\u00e2\u20ac\u009d where there is an arbitration agreement: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153removing the determination of \u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcmerits\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 of a dispute from the courts\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n

Bathurst notes the High Court in TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia <\/em>(2013) 251 CLR 533; [2013] HCA 5<\/a> upheld the Model Law<\/em> regime, by accepting that there was nothing in the Constitution\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s<\/em> \u00e2\u20ac\u0153judicial power\u00e2\u20ac\u009d requiring courts \u00e2\u20ac\u0153to be the sole arbiters of the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcmerits\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 of a case\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n

In considering how the law struck the balance between arbitration and the courts, Bathurst examines the history of the relationship from the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153formative\u00e2\u20ac\u009d period (1154\u00e2\u20ac\u201c1698), through the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153statutory\u00e2\u20ac\u009d period (1698\u00e2\u20ac\u201c1985), to the present \u00e2\u20ac\u0153international\u00e2\u20ac\u009d period.<\/p>\n

During the formative period, the common law was emerging, with royal justice becoming centralised, but the royal courts displayed reluctance to assert jurisdiction over claims based on private agreements. Indeed, they actively encouraged \u00e2\u20ac\u0153alternative dispute resolution\u00e2\u20ac\u009d via mediation \u00e2\u20ac\u201c a process then known as a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153loveday\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n

Bathurst demonstrates a lightness of touch in discussing these developments:<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153It makes one wonder: \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcwhat if?\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 Instead of having \u00e2\u20ac\u02dccourt-annexed mediation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, we could have had \u00e2\u20ac\u02dccourt-annexed lovedays\u00e2\u20ac\u2122. Instead of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcmediators\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 and \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcmediation rooms\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, we could have had \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcloveday-makers\u00e2\u20ac\u2122and \u00e2\u20ac\u02dclove rooms\u00e2\u20ac\u2122.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Perhaps a clue to this early tenacity of arbitration lay in its utility for resolving commercial disputes. In the 13th<\/sup> century for instance, the Statute of Merchants permitted a creditor and debtor to record their arbitration agreement before mayors of certain towns or cities \u00e2\u20ac\u201c even before appointed merchants at fairs. A further stimulus to the entrenchment of arbitration was the use of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153conditional bonds\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in the 14th<\/sup> and 15th<\/sup> centuries to secure compliance with an agreement to arbitrate.<\/p>\n

Still there was a tussle with court authority over time. Bathurst discusses the doctrine of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153revocability\u00e2\u20ac\u009d which propounded that prior to the making of an arbitration award the authority of the arbitrators could be revoked by any one of the parties with the effect any award made by the arbitrators was a nullity. This doctrine, which remained in force for several centuries, originated in Sir Edward Coke\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s report of Vynior\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Case <\/em>in the early 17th<\/sup> century, even though Coke\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s legal reasoning was \u00e2\u20ac\u0153slightly questionable\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said Bathurst.<\/p>\n

The House of Lords\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 decision in Scott v Avery<\/em> in 1856 affirmed the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153revocability\u00e2\u20ac\u009d doctrine on the basis that the jurisdiction of courts to hear and determine disputes could not be ousted by private agreements to arbitrate.<\/p>\n

Notwithstanding these assertions of court authority and litigation over arbitration, Bathurst discerns a general trend throughout history of the law\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s increasingly positive acceptance of arbitration by private agreement as having a place in dispute resolution. A fillip to this development was the practice of courts starting from the mid-17th<\/sup> century to refer matters to arbitration or mediation as a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153rule of court\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (if both parties agreed) and also to allow for awards made to be declared a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153rule of court\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n

The \u00e2\u20ac\u0153rule of court\u00e2\u20ac\u009d procedure was given statutory form in the Arbitration Act 1698<\/em> by Parliament in response to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the increased level of commercial activity and need for an efficient means of arbitrating disputes\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n

A series of legislative reforms in the 19th<\/sup> century in Britain, replicated in the Australian colonies \u00e2\u20ac\u201c culminating in NSW in the Arbitration Act 1902 <\/em>(NSW), ultimately extinguished the doctrine of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153revocability\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. Specific reform measures included that courts be required to grant a stay of proceedings where they were covered by an agreement to arbitrate, and the enforceability of an arbitration award as a judgment of a court. (Perhaps attesting to the law\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s recognition of the validity of arbitrations, is the anecdote repeated by Bathurst about a Lord Chief Justice affirming the award of an arbitrator that was, effectively, a turkey!)<\/p>\n

The 19th<\/sup> century reforms finally laid the foundation for the emergence of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the consensual dispute resolution process supported by statute\u00e2\u20ac\u009d that prevails under the Model Law<\/em> today in Australia.<\/p>\n

Bathurst concludes that arbitration should not be treated \u00e2\u20ac\u0153as an alien interloper inimical to our system of justice, but as an integral and longstanding feature of dispute resolution in our society\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/p>\n

Please note that the links to the content in this post will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n

To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com\u00c2\u00a0or\u00c2\u00a0contact us on 1300 304 195\u00c2\u00a0(Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980\u00c2\u00a0(international customers) during business hours\u00c2\u00a0(Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n

For general queries, please contact:\u00c2\u00a0tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

For over a thousand years \u00e2\u20ac\u201c at least \u00e2\u20ac\u201c mediation and arbitration have been practised in the English-speaking world. In fact, arbitration as a dispute settling mechanism …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":11946,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42,38,36],"tags":[13691,13692,13693,13694,13695,13696,13697,13698,13699,13700,1880,47,13701,40,13702,1337,13703,13704,172,13705,13706,13707,13708,13709,13710,1819],"class_list":["post-11936","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-building-and-construction-law-journal","category-journals","category-uncategorized","tag-court-annexed-arbitration","tag-merits","tag-conditional-bonds","tag-court-annexed-lovedays","tag-love-rooms","tag-loveday","tag-lovedaymakers","tag-revocability","tag-revocability-doctrine","tag-rule-of-court","tag-alternative-dispute-resolution","tag-arbitration","tag-arbitration-act-1698","tag-bcl","tag-chief-justice-of-nsw","tag-commercial-arbitration","tag-commercial-disputes","tag-international-arbitration-act-1974-cth","tag-mediation","tag-mediation-and-arbitration","tag-scott-v-avery","tag-sir-edward-coke","tag-tcl-air-conditioner-zhongshan-co-ltd-v-the-judges-of-the-federal-court-of-australia","tag-tom-bathurst","tag-turkey","tag-uncitral-model-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11936","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11936"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11936\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11946"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11936"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11936"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11936"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}