James D. Forrester wrote:

James D. Forrester wrote:

...

Well, I personally have grave concerns at the concept of spreading the ground too thinly, and parcelling out cases a priori. I'm a strong believer in our current system (which is not much of a surprise, given how and by whom its form was shaped :-)), where Arbitrators are moved to write a case up, rather than handed it and told to get on with the case. This is why we don't sit en banc (and won't, until I'm/we're convinced that the benefits outweigh the disbenefits).

For those playing especial, close attention, yes, I missed the word "not" from there - that is, this should have read "we don't *not* sit en banc".

Oh, I just figured that maybe "en banc" meant something different in the British system. Why that might have been the case I'm not sure, but since the term is actually French, who knows. (Yes, the law is equal parts medieval French and Latin.)

Meanwhile, my best wishes to the Arbitration Committee. To the newly chosen especially, but also to the already sitting, who hopefully will absorb some renewed vigor from their colleagues. Be thankful that a knowledge of English is generally sufficient, and try not to lapse to much into Wiki-ish like IAR, CSD, and the like.

--Michael Snow