An interesting case arose out of a dispute over a right to a wall. The appointed arbitrator was a chap called Stansfield. He entered upon the reference on the 6th September, and on the same day viewed the premises and heard the case. There was only one meeting. He made his award on the following day in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendant was not very happy. He appealed to the court and sought to get the award set aside or, at least, referred back to the arbitrator. He instructed Counsel who argued on the grounds, first, of surprise, second, that the defendant had no opportunity to adduce all his evidence; thirdly, that the arbitrator improperly rejected certain evidence.

The plaintiff instructed a QC and a Junior who argued in support of enforcing the award.

The Judge upholding the validity of the award said, "Instead of there being any improper haste, I think he [the arbitrator] did what I wish all arbitrators would do - apply himself diligently to the inquiry, and make an award at once. It would make references much more popular and convenient in those numerous instances in which they are desirable; and Mr Stansfield has my approval for his diligence."

It is quite clear that the background of the Judge's attitude is one of general dissatisfaction with the time taken to deal with arbitrations and obviously the Judge was trying to make that point by giving such clear approval to the speed of this arbitrator. For those readers who may wish to refer to the case, I refer them to Rushworth v Waddington, (1859) 1 LT 69 (24th November), Martin B. sitting in the Exchequer Chamber. Yes, it was eighteen fifty-nine! but could it have been yesterday?