Legal Definitions - nul fait agard

Nul fait agard is a term from Law French that translates to "no award was made." It signifies that a decision, judgment, or resolution, often from an arbitrator or other adjudicator, was not issued or rendered in a particular matter.

Nul fait agard is a legal phrase from Law French meaning no award or decision was made. It is used when a body or individual tasked with making a formal judgment, ruling, or determination fails to do so. This often arises in situations where a resolution was expected or legally required, such as in arbitration proceedings or jury deliberations, but no such resolution was delivered.

• Example 1 (Arbitration):

  A dispute between a software developer and a client over project deliverables was submitted to binding arbitration. After both sides presented their cases and evidence over several sessions, the appointed arbitrator unexpectedly fell ill and, due to the severity of the illness, was unable to issue a final written award before their term expired. The parties were left without a resolution.

  This situation would be described as nul fait agard because the arbitrator, despite hearing the case, failed to produce the required formal decision or "award" that would have settled the dispute between the parties.

• Example 2 (Jury Trial):

  In a high-profile criminal trial, the jury deliberated for an extended period but ultimately sent a note to the judge stating they were hopelessly deadlocked and could not reach a unanimous verdict on any of the charges. The judge subsequently declared a mistrial.

  Here, nul fait agard applies because the jury, whose duty it was to render a verdict (which serves as the "award" or decision in a trial), was unable to do so. The absence of a verdict means no legal determination was made regarding the defendant's guilt or innocence, necessitating a new trial.

• Example 3 (Administrative Review):

  A municipal zoning board was tasked with reviewing a developer's application for a variance to build a new commercial complex. After several public hearings and internal discussions, the board members were evenly split on the decision and could not achieve the majority vote required to approve or deny the variance. They adjourned indefinitely without issuing any formal finding or recommendation.

  This illustrates nul fait agard because the zoning board, which was expected to make a formal determination (an "award" or ruling) on the variance application, failed to produce any conclusive decision. The developer's application remains in limbo due to the board's inability to act.