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

Helen Wada: Why engagement initiatives fail without human-centric leadership

Workforce engagement has become a hot topic across the boardroom and beyond, particularly as hybrid working practices have become the norm.

Recruiters warned to move beyond ‘post and pray’ as passive talent overlooked

Employers risk missing most candidates by relying on job boards as hiring methods struggle to deliver quality applicants.

Employment tribunal roundup: Appeal fairness, dismissal reasoning, discrimination tests and religious belief clarified

Decisions examine appeal failures, dismissal reasoning, discrimination claims and religious belief, offering practical guidance on fairness, causation and proportionality.

Fears of AI cheating in hiring ‘overblown’ as employers urged to rethink assessments

Employers may be overstating concerns about AI misuse in recruitment as evidence of candidate manipulation remains limited.
- Advertisement -

More employees use workplace health benefits, but barriers still limit access

Many workers struggle to access employer healthcare support due to confusion, costs and unclear processes.

Gender pay gap in tech widens to nine-year high as AI roles drive salaries

Women in IT earn less as salaries rise faster in male-dominated AI and cybersecurity roles, widening pay differences.

Must read

Professor Sir Cary Cooper CBE: ‘People need more autonomy and control’

Sir Cary Cooper: How can we facilitate work cultures that produce healthy and happy workforces and, by association, increase productivity?

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.
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you