Contractual arbitrator cannot be displaced absent misconduct, fraud or disqualification, Supreme Court rules

Where an arbitration clause names a particular officer by office as arbitrator, a civil court cannot revoke that contractual authority or substitute an independent arbitrator unless legally sufficient grounds are proved, such as misconduct, fraud or disqualification. Consent adjournments and ongoing proceedings showed no neglect of duty by the named arbitrator, so there was no basis for judicial interference. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction to displace the contractual arbitrator without the parties' consent, and the order appointing another arbitrator was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil court could revoke the authority of an arbitrator named in the contract and appoint an independent arbitrator in the absence of proved misconduct, fraud or disqualification.

Analysis: The arbitration clause specifically designated a particular officer by office as the arbitrator. Where parties have voluntarily chosen their arbitrator under the contract, the court has no general power to interpose in the appointment or to remove the arbitrator except on legally sufficient grounds such as misconduct, fraud or disqualification. The record also showed that adjournments had been sought with consent and that the arbitrator was proceeding with the matter, so there was no basis to hold that he had neglected his duties or that revocation was justified. In such a situation, the court could not, without the parties' consent, appoint an independent arbitrator in place of the named contractual arbitrator.

Conclusion: The civil court had no jurisdiction to revoke the contractual arbitrator's authority and appoint another arbitrator. The order appointing an independent arbitrator was rightly set aside, and the appeal failed.

---