In a construction contract, can an engineer be an impartial arbitrator?

In Jackson v. Barry R. Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 238 at p. 247 Bowen L.J. dealing with an appeal from an injunction staying an arbitration under the terms of a contract quite similar to the one in question (and where the engineer who as the named arbitrator, had written a letter in even stronger terms than the letter of May 1st relied on by the appellant) used the words as follows: "Technically, the controversy is one between the Plaintiff and the railway company; but, virtually, the engineer, on such an occasion, must be the judge, so to speak, in his own quarrel. Employers find it necessary in their own interests, it seems, to impose such terms on the contractors whose tenders they accept, and the contractors are willing, in order that their tenders should be accepted, to be bound by such terms. It is no part of our duty to approach such curiously-coloured contracts with a desire to upset them or to emancipate the contractor from the burden of a stipulation which, however onerous, it was worth his while to agree to bear. To do so, would be to attempt to dictate to the commercial world the conditions under which it should carry on its business. To an adjudication in such a peculiar reference, the engineer cannot be expected, nor was it intended, that he should come with a mind free from the human weakness of a preconceived opinion. The perfectly open judgment, the absence of all previously formed or pronounced views, which in an ordinary arbitrator are natural and to be looked for, neither party to the contract proposed to exact from the arbitrator of their choice. They knew well that he possibly or probably must be committed to a prior view of his own, and that he might not be impartial in the ordinary sense of the word."