The claimant said that the requirement in an arbitration clause for all the arbitrators to be members of the Ismaili community was unlawful under the 2003 Regulations.
Held: The appointment was not discriminatory. An arbitrator’s employment was not within the Regulations, and was not a worker under the case law. He was instead an independent provider of services who was not in a relationship of subordination with the person who received the services. The purpose of the contract was not the only test for determining employment, though it can be relevant in arriving at the correct conclusion in particular cases. An arbitrator was a quasi-judicial adjudicator whose duty was not to act in the particular interests of either party. The main purpose of the appointment, where relevant, was the impartial resolution of the dispute.
David Steel J
[2009] EWHC 1364 (Comm), [2009] 1 CLC 962, [2010] 1 All ER 302, [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 778
Bailii
Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
At first instance – Jivraj v Hashwani SC 27-Jul-2011
The parties had a joint venture agreement which provided that any dispute was to be referred to an arbitrator from the Ismaili community. The claimant said that this method of appointment became void as a discriminatory provision under the 2003 . .
Appeal from – Jivraj v Hashwani (Rev 2) CA 22-Jun-2010
The court was asked whether parties to an arbitration agreement in a commercial contract can stipulate that the tribunal is to be drawn from members of a particular religious group, in this case the Ismaili community.
Held: The defendant’s . .
Cited – Clyde and Co LLP and Another v van Winkelhof SC 21-May-2014
Solicitor Firm Member was a Protected Worker
The solicitor appellant had been a member of the firm, a limited liability partnership. She disclosed criminal misbehaviour by a partner in a branch in Africa. On dismissal she sought protection as a whistleblower. This was rejected, it being found . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Contract, Arbitration, European
Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.347273