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

Personalising the Benefits Experience: Why Employees Need More Than Just Information

This article explores how organisations can move beyond passive, one-size-fits-all communication to deliver relevant, timely, and simplified benefits experiences that reflect employee needs and life stages.

Grant Wyatt: When the love dies – when staying is riskier than quitting

When people fall out of love with their employer, or feel their employer has fallen out of love with them, what follows is rarely a clean exit.

£30bn pension savings window opens for employers ahead of 2029 reforms

UK employers could unlock billions in National Insurance savings by expanding pension salary sacrifice schemes before new limits take effect in 2029.

Expat jobs ‘fail early as costs hit $79,000 per worker’

International assignments are ending early due to family strain, isolation and poor preparation, as rising costs increase pressure on employers.
- Advertisement -

The Great Employer Divide: What the evidence shows about employers that back parents and carers — and those that don’t

Understand the growing divide between organisations that effectively support working parents and carers — and those that don’t. This session shows how to turn employee experience data into a clear business case, linking care-related pressures to performance, retention and workforce stability.

Scott Mills exit puts spotlight on risk of ‘news vacuum’ in high-profile dismissals

Sudden departure of a long-serving BBC presenter raises questions about how employers manage high-profile dismissals and limit speculation.

Must read

Maggie Berry: Do women want to be leaders?

It’s hardly breaking news that, in many instances, women...

Jilaine Parkes: 4 Leadership development blind-spots and how performance management can help

Whether leaders manage people or process, lead a vision...
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you