Arbitration jurisdiction and facial error rules limit challenges to an umpire's award and uphold acquiescence-based waiver.

An umpire may validly enter upon the reference after arbitrators fail to act within the extended time under the arbitration rules, and a party that participates with full knowledge and without protest is barred by acquiescence from later disputing jurisdiction. An award cannot be set aside for an alleged error of law unless the error is apparent on the face of the award or an incorporated document; the court will not reopen the merits or re-examine evidence to such error. A direction concerning return of a security deposit will not be treated as outside the reference unless it is shown, on the terms of the reference and materials before the court, to fall beyond the submitted disputes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the umpire had jurisdiction to enter upon the reference and make the award after the arbitrators failed to act within the extended time, and whether the Board was precluded from challenging that jurisdiction by acquiescence. (ii) Whether the award was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record on the question of limitation and the claims referred. (iii) Whether the direction regarding return of the security deposit fell within the matters referred to arbitration.

Issue (i): Whether the umpire had jurisdiction to enter upon the reference and make the award after the arbitrators failed to act within the extended time, and whether the Board was precluded from challenging that jurisdiction by acquiescence.

Analysis: The authority of the original arbitrators had been revoked by consent and, in any event, rule 4 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act empowered the umpire to enter upon the reference once the arbitrators failed to make the award within the extended time. The umpire's request for a court order did not destroy that jurisdiction. The Board participated in the proceedings before the umpire with full knowledge of the facts and without protest, and such conduct amounted to acquiescence barring a later challenge to the appointment and jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The umpire had jurisdiction, and the Board was precluded from disputing it.

Issue (ii): Whether the award was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record on the question of limitation and the claims referred.

Analysis: The umpire was not bound to give reasons, and a mere mistake of law or fact not apparent on the face of the award does not invalidate it. No legal proposition forming the basis of the award was shown to be erroneous on the face of the award or any incorporated document. The High Court could not reopen the merits or examine evidence to detect an alleged error of law where none appeared from the award itself.

Conclusion: The award was not open to challenge on the ground of an error of law apparent on its face.

Issue (iii): Whether the direction regarding return of the security deposit fell within the matters referred to arbitration.

Analysis: The reference agreement restricted arbitration to the specifically enumerated disputes, and the question whether the security deposit formed part of the second contract or related to a claim the Board could retain depended on the terms of the reference. On the materials before the Court, the High Court had not given a final finding warranting interference with the award on this aspect, and no sufficient ground was established to treat the direction as outside the reference.

Conclusion: The direction regarding the security deposit was not shown to be beyond the reference so as to invalidate the award.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the award was unsustainable, and the appellant succeeded in restoring the award and decree passed in its favour.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an arbitrator or umpire acquires jurisdiction under the governing arbitration procedure and the parties, with full knowledge, participate without protest, later objection to jurisdiction is barred by acquiescence; an award cannot be set aside for error of law unless the error appears on the face of the award or an incorporated document.

---