header-logo header-logo

Clause for concern?

03 August 2011
Issue: 7477 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Employment equality regulations do not apply to arbitrators

Arbitrators are not employees for the purpose of anti-discrimination legislation, the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled.

In Jivraj v Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40, the justices found that an arbitration clause specifying that arbitrators be of a particular religion, was neither discriminatory nor void. The clause, in a business agreement between Mr Hashwani and Mr Jivraj, provided that each of three arbitrators must be a respected member of the Ismaili Muslim community.

Hashwani nominated Sir Anthony Colman, a former High Court judge, as arbitrator. Jivraj objected, on the grounds Sir Anthony is Jewish. Hashwani argued that the clause had become unlawful because it discriminated on grounds of religion under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1660).

Overturning the Court of Appeal decision, the justices held that an arbitrator is not an employee but an independent provider of services with a duty of impartiality to both sides of a dispute, and therefore the regulations did not apply.

Sarosh Zaiwalla, senior partner at Zaiwalla & Co, who is acting for Hashwani, said: “It is disappointing that in today’s age the Supreme Court did not take a more enlightened approach to ensure that it would discourage any form of discrimination on grounds of race, religion or sex in the appointment of arbitrators.”

Other lawyers, and arbitrators, have expressed relief at the decision. Following the Court of Appeal’s decision last year, thousands of international businesses made sure their arbitration clauses did not stipulate the religion or nationality of the arbitrator.

Tony Marks, director of legal services at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, said: “This will come as a relief to the arbitration profession.”

Adrian Lifely, head of international arbitration at Osborne Clarke, said: “It resolves the uncertainty caused by last year’s surprising judgment.

“As an arbitration centre, London is worth millions of pounds to the UK economy. What makes it attractive to users of arbitration is the ability to arbitrate with minimal interference from the UK courts and for users to freely select the tribunal that will determine their disputes.”

Issue: 7477 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll