Here the petitioners sought judicial review of a decision of Gordon Murray, an architect, in his capacity as Independent Expert under a contract between the petitioners and National Car Parks Limited, the latter being the in interested party. Murray had been appointed as Independent Expert to determine whether or not a suspensive condition in the missives had been purified. The dispute between the parties was whether Murray, when acting as Independent Expert, was acting as an arbiter and could be required to state a case for the opinion of the Court of Session under section 3 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972. If Murray was acting as an arbiter and did state a case for the opinion of the court, it was likely that NCP would resile from the missives. The petitioner sought:- (i) declarator that the Independent Expert was required to determine the issue referred to him as an expert and not as an arbiter; (ii) reduction of the decision of Murray; and (iii) decree ordaining Mr Murray to issue a determination in terms of his draft findings dated 6 August 2009 on the business day following that on which judgment is given prior to 10am. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that section 3 of the 1972 Act did not apply as there was not an agreement within the missives to refer a dispute to arbitration and there was not an arbiter and Murray was called upon to make quick decisions in the course of the parties' implementation of the missives and his task was to determine whether the suspensive condition was purified. It was submitted on behalf of the interested party that the parties had appointed Murray to resolve disputes which arose in the course of its implementation and the definition of Independent Expert did not define the capacity in which he was to act in contrast with the express provisions other parts of the missives which stated that he was to act as an expert and not as an arbiter. Here the court considered the terms of the missives entered in to between the parties to ascertain their intentions and the manner in which Murray was to perform his task and the time limits contained within the missives. The court considered whether the parties' intention was for Murray to act as an expert and not an arbiter and what procedures they agreed to apply.