HRreview 20 Years
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Subscribe for weekday HR news, opinion and advice.
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Supreme court rules on arbitration

-

The UK supreme court has ruled after a much anticipated declaration that arbitrators are not ’employees’ for purposes of UK anti-discrimination legislation.

On 22 June 2010, in Jivraj v. Hashwani, the Court of Appeal applied UK anti-discrimination legislation to invalidate an arbitration agreement which stipulated that only members of a certain religious group could act as arbitrator.

As in the case of Mr Jivraj and Mr Hashwani, Neil Newing, associate at international law firm comments:

“To a huge collective sigh of relief amongst the arbitration community, the Supreme Court has today ruled that arbitrators are not employees for the purposes of discrimination legislation.

HRreview Logo

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

In overturning the controversial decision of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has prevented a large number of institutional and ad hoc arbitration clauses which contain express or implicit restrictions on the eligibility of persons to be appointed as arbitrator from being vulnerable to challenge.

Although the arbitration clause in this case is unusual, the ramifications of the Court of Appeal decision were potentially extensive.
The Regulations have been subsumed since October 2010 into the Equality Act 2010, which consolidates all the English discrimination regulations.

The 2010 Act adopts the same definition of employment as in the Regulations and the concern was that if an arbitrator was an employee for these purposes, any express or implicit restriction on eligibility on grounds of, for example, nationality or ethnicity, would be discriminatory.’’

The decision last year had raised concerns about the validity of many standard arbitration clauses including those in existing contracts. The Supreme Court decision lays those concerns to rest.

Latest news

Felicia Williams: Why ‘shadow work’ is quietly breaking your people strategy

Employees are losing seven hours a week to tasks that fall outside their core job description. For HR leaders, that’s the kind of stat that keeps you up at night.

Redundancies rise as 327,000 job losses forecast for 2026

UK job losses are set to rise again as redundancy warnings hit post-pandemic highs, with employers cutting roles amid rising costs and economic pressure.

Rise of ‘sickfluencers’ and AI advice sparks concern over attitudes to work

Online influencers and AI tools are shaping how people approach illness and employment, heaping pressure on employers.

‘Silent killer’ dust linked to 500 construction deaths a year as 600,000 workers face exposure

Hundreds of UK construction workers die each year from silica dust exposure as a new campaign calls for stronger workplace protections.
- Advertisement -

Leaders ‘overestimate’ how much workers use AI

Firms may be misreading workforce readiness for artificial intelligence, as frontline staff report far lower day-to-day adoption than executives expect.

Cost-of-living pressures ‘keep unhappy workers in their jobs’

Many say economic pressures are forcing them to remain in jobs they would otherwise leave, as pay and financial stability dominate career decisions.

Must read

Darren Timmins: Retaining high performers in 2015

With a third of all workers in the UK looking to move jobs, how can you keep your talent committed?

Macro Talent Management (MTM) a new paradigm to prevent a skills drain?

The loss of talented employees from an organisation can...
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you