header-logo header-logo

15 September 2011 / Ned Beale , Hannah Shribman
Issue: 7481 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

A victory for common sense

Ned Beale & Hannah Shribman welcome the Supreme Court’s move to exclude arbitration agreements from anti-discrimination legislation

In Jivraj v Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40, [2011] All ER (D) 246 (Jul), the Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Court of Appeal ([2010] EWCA Civ 712, [2011] 1 All ER 50) which had surprised employment and arbitration lawyers alike by holding that an agreement providing for arbitrators to be selected on the basis of their religion was void under anti-discrimination legislation. Holding that arbitrators were “employed” for the purposes of the legislation appeared an over-simplification of the legal test, thereby potentially extending the ambit of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) to other individual suppliers of services. There was also a concern that arbitration agreements which require international arbitrators to be of neutral nationality, as provided for by the International Criminal Court (ICC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and other institutional rules, might be held to be discriminatory and therefore similarly void. This led to the ICC and LCIA

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll