Arbitration Act Agrimex Ltd. v Tradigrain

Question: Discuss about theArbitration Actfor Agrimex Ltd. v Tradigrain. Answer: Introduction According to section 28(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 the court can adjust the fees to be paid to the arbitrator according to the terms and means as provided by the court upon the application of the parties to the dispute. Section 28(3) of the Act further provides that if the expenses have been already paid to the arbitrator before such application is made than the court has to power to order a repayment upon the application by the parties to this dispute. This repayment can only be ordered by the court with respect to the amount it considered excessive and only if such repayment is reasonably necessary. This repayment of fees has effect on orders made under the provisions of Section 24(4) and 25(3)(b) in case or removal or resignation of arbitrator respectively. In the case of Agrimex Ltd. v Tradigrain [2003] 2 the court ruled that the fees charged by the Arbitrator organization with respect to the legal fees was unfair and excessive. The Arbitration Act provides clearly that the court has the power to determine and adjust the fees of the arbitrator on application of the parties to the dispute if it is satisfied that the fees were excessive. The defendants in this case cited the case of Threlfall v Fanshawe (1850) 19 LJQB 329 where the court ruled appointment of an arbitrator was necessary and thus the fees charged was not excessive. The defendants in this case also cited the case of Re Collyer-Bristow Co [1901] where the court held that the amount charged for the appointment of solicitors to determine the issue was fair and not excessive. The court provided that these cases are old and during these years there have been a lot of changes in the process of arbitration. It was not necessary for GAFTA (defendant) to appoint a legal solicitor t o make and draft an award. The court cited the case of Transcatalana de Commercio SA v Incobrassa Industrial e Commercial Brazileira SA [1995] where it was held that the appointment of additional solicitor to determine the issue was unnecessary. The court also provided the case of Kurkjian v Marketing Exchange No 2 [1986] 2 to this context according to which the fees to be paid to the solicitors must be proportionate to the amount to be awarded. Thus the decision made by the court in this case was not unfair and did not account to undue interference with arbitrators work as it would have been unfair to award that fees in this case and such a decision was in compliance with section 28(2) and (3) of the Arbitration Act 1996. References Agrimex Ltd. v Tradigrain [2003] 2 Arbitration Act 1996 Kurkjian v Marketing Exchange No 2 [1986] 2 Re Collyer-Bristow Co [1901] Threlfall v Fanshawe (1850) 19 LJQB 329 Transcatalana de Commercio SA v Incobrassa Industrial e Commercial Brazileira SA [1995]