Prince v Capital Insurance Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Judge: Bishop, J
• Judgment Date: 21 June 1978
• Neutral Citation: AG 1978 HC 19
• Docket Number: 53 of 1976
• Date: 21 June 1978

High Court

Bishop, J.

53 of 1976

Prince

and

Capital Insurance Limited

Time H. Kendall for appellant.

Cyril Maundy for respondent.

Arbitration - Delay in filing summons to stay proceedings under an award — Summons dismissed.

Bishop, J

1 On Wednesday 21 ^st June this year I considered a summons filed on 9 ^th January this year and a summons filed on 20 ^th June this year. I granted the leave sought by the former and I dismissed the later. I now fulfil my promise to learned counsel to record my reasons for so doing and to read them on a subsequent date.

2 Beatrice Prince was the owner of a Datsun motor car H7903, and on the 6 ^th February 1974 Capital Insurance Ltd., also called herein the respondent, made a written agreement with her in respect of insurance (Policy No. S.J. 005). Condition 6 of that agreement stated:

“All differences arising out of this Policy shall be referred to the decision of an Arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties in difference or if they cannot agree upon a single Arbitrator to the decision of two Arbitrators one to be appointed in writing by each of the parties within one calendar month after having been required in writing so to do by either o the parties or in case the Arbitrators do not agree of an Umpire appointed in writing by the Arbitrators before entering upon the reference. The Umpire shall sit with the Arbitrators and preside at their meetings and the making of an Award shall be a condition precedent to any right to action against the company. If the Company shall disclaim liability to the Insured for any claim hereunder and such claim shall not within twelve calendar months from the date of such disclaimer have been referred to Arbitration under the provisions herein contained then the claim shall for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable hereunder”

3 Between 25 ^th and 26 ^th September 1975 the car H7903 was damaged; and by notice dated 29 ^th January 1976, Beatrice Prince requested the respondent within 7 clear days of service of that notice to concur with her in the appointment of a single arbitrator to act in a matter which arose out of the damage.

4 It was undisputed that Capital Insurance Ltd. agreed to the appointment of Everette Lake as sole Arbitrator but refused formally to concur in the appointment and sought to have inserted in the appointment a condition that any award made by the proposed arbitrator should not be binding on the Capital Insurance Ltd. It would be appropriate here, I think, to recall section 17 of The Arbitration Act 1975.

“17. Unless a contrary intention is expressed therein, every arbitration agreement shall where such a provision is applicable to the reference, be deemed to contain a provision that the award to be made by the arbitrator or umpire shall be final and binding on the parties and the person claiming under them respectively.”

5 On the 25 ^th June 1976, the solicitor for Beatrice Prince filed an application for an Order that some fit and proper person be appointed to act as sole arbitrator under an agreement for arbitration in Condition 6 of Motor Insurance Policy No. S.J. — 005 dated 6 ^th...