Sixteen of us had our analytical abilities and our knowledge put to the test at the Branch Surgery on 9th May. Ian Menzies led the session, ably assisted by Don Calder and Karen Gough, and the discussions centred on situations set at eleven points in the conduct of a hypothetical arbitration. The questions had been designed to draw out several issues arising from the Arbitration Act 1996, as well as some of the more familiar ones.

The opportunity for debate in the presence of very experienced people was of great value, and the benefit from the event was based upon participation by everyone. Several practical tips were exchanged, and interpretation of the Act was discussed, with particular reference to party autonomy and the use of the word "order" in the context of provisional orders. An excellent lunch was provided, and the only adverse comment I would have is that time ran out. As with any such exercise, so many permutations can be considered that we too enthusiastically dealt with the opening situations, and had to skimp the last ones.

Several people agreed that, short of real arbitrations, such an event ranks alongside the Fellowship Assessment Course in terms of practical value. I would certainly recommend anyone considering going to a future surgery to do so, and would like to record the appreciation of the participants for the work done by the organisers and leaders. As a parting comment, I stress the requirement for an arbitrator to have an independent mind: three drivers played follow-my-leader out of the car park and found themselves in a dead end.

Another civil engineer, and another who has recently stepped up his interest in arbitration and the Branch. His contribution to the Surgery led to him being persuaded (without too much difficulty) to write the report for those who couldnt make it. He lives in Haywards Heath.