Special Referee - Scope

Scope

The parties may anticipate the possibility of a dispute and nominate a special referee as the most appropriate form of dispute resolution (see forum selection clause). Such clauses cannot limit or deny the right of either party to refer the matter to a court (whether in the state nominated or, if the contract does not specify a state, in any court prepared to accept jurisdiction subject to the rules on forum shopping).

If there is no anticipatory provision in the contract, the parties may, of their own initiative, seek out a person qualified to act as a special referee and submit the factual case to him or her for resolution. Although costs will be involved in legal representation, fees to witnesses, and in the fee to the special referee, the expenditure will be a fraction of the costs of full-scale litigation.

If there is no agreement between the parties, the civil procedure of many states allows the court to refer the matter to a special referee when this will both provide exertise on the facts, and enable the legal case to be disposed of in a more timely fashion. For example, in Canada, the Arbitration Act provides:

14. (1) Subject to rules of court and to any right to have particular cases tried by a jury, the court or a judge may refer any question arising in any cause or matter, other than a criminal proceeding by the Crown, to an official or special referee for inquiry or report.
(2) The report of an official or special referee may be adopted wholly or partially by the court or a judge, and if so adopted may be enforced as a judgment or order to the same effect.

As with most legal terminology, there is some variation by jurisdiction in the precise nomenclature used: in some jurisdictions a special referee is known as a "master", "special master" or "auditor".

Read more about this topic:  Special Referee

Famous quotes containing the word scope:

    In the works of man, everything is as poor as its author; vision is confined, means are limited, scope is restricted, movements are labored, and results are humdrum.
    Joseph De Maistre (1753–1821)

    Each man must have his “I;” it is more necessary to him than bread; and if he does not find scope for it within the existing institutions he will be likely to make trouble.
    Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929)

    The scope of modern government in what it can and ought to accomplish for its people has been widened far beyond the principles laid down by the old “laissez faire” school of political rights, and the widening has met popular approval.
    William Howard Taft (1857–1930)