Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
19www.fulbright.comApril2011JIVRAJV.HASHWANIEUROPEANANTI-DISCRIMINATIONLEGISLATIONANDTHEIMPLICATIONSFORENGLISHSEATEDARBITRATIONSANDFORARBITRATIONAWARDSTOBEENFORCEDINENGLANDBackgroundtheadoptionofarbitrationrulesthatclearlyimpliedawaiverofsuchrights.ThepositionunderthenewlawinHongKongwheretheprovisionsconcerningthecourtspowersinrelationtoquestionsoflawonlyarisewherethepartiesoptintotheirapplicationisperhapssomethingofahappycompromisebetweenthesepositions.UnlikethepositioninEnglandwheresections45and69arethedefaultpositionpartiesfromotherModelLawjurisdictionswhoexpectthearbitraltribunalsdecisiononaquestionoflawtobenalwillnotnowndthemselvessurprisedbytheavailabilityofsuchcourtapplicationsinHongKong.Howeverwherethereisagenuineneedordesireofthepartiestoprovideforcourtscrutinyofquestionsoflawthenthepartiesmayagreetoconferthenecessarypowers.Theseoptinprovisionswillalsoapplytoanyarbitrationagreemententeredintowithinsixyearsofthenewlawcomingintoeffectwheresuchagreementprovidesthatthearbitrationistobetreatedasadomesticarbitration.Sections32and33ofthenewlawaddressmediators.Provisionismadeforarbitratorstoactasmediatorswiththepartiesconsent.Wheresuchamediationhasbeenconductedbythearbitratorthisshallnotgiverisetoanyobjectionagainstthecontinuingconductofthearbitralproceedingsbythearbitrator.ThenewlawmaintainsthearrangementsfortheenforcementinHongKongofbothNewYorkConventionawardsandMainlandChineseawards.AlthoughtheArbitrationBillwaspassedbytheLegislativeCouncilinNovember2010itwillonlyformallyenterintoforceupontheissuanceofanoticebytheSecretaryforJusticeintheGovernmentGazettewhichislikelytooccurintheearlymonthsof2011.AsthecaseloadsofboththeHKIACandtheHongKongbranchoftheICCsecretariatcontinuetoincreasethisnewarbitrationlawislikelytoassistinHongKongscontinuingeffortstopromoteitselfasaleadinginternationalarbitrationcentreandparticularlyasanidealvenueforthearbitrationofdisputesbetweenChineseandWesterncompanies.InJanuary1981Mr.JivrajandMr.HashwanienteredintoajointventureagreementregardingworldwiderealestateinvestmentstheAgreement.NotunusuallyforaninternationaljointventureofthistypetheAgreementprovidedthatalldisputesarisingfromthejointventureberesolvedbyarbitration.LesstypicalwastherequirementofArticle81oftheAgreementthatthearbitratorsofanysuchdisputeberespectedmembersoftheIsmailicommunityandholdersofhighofcewithinthecommunity.Suchrestrictionsonanarbitratorsbackgroundorreligiousbeliefarenotunusualinagreementsamongbusinesspeoplefromclose-knitcommunitieswhoplaceimportanceonhavingdisputeskeptwithinthecommunitytoensuretheyareresolvedinaccordancewiththevaluesofthatcommunity.HoweverinadecisionwithpotentiallyfarreachingimplicationstheEnglishCourtofAppealhasrecentlyfoundthattherequirementthatthearbitratorbefromtheIsmailicommunitycontravenedtheEmploymentEqualityReligionandBeliefRegulations2003theRegulationsandthatthearbitrationagreementasawholewasthereforevoid.Mr.JivrajandMr.HashwanieventuallyfoundthemselvesinvolvedinadisputewhichMr.HashwanireferredtoarbitrationinJuly2008appointingSirAnthonyColmanasarbitrator.InresponseMr.JivrajappliedtotheEnglishHighCourtforadeclarationthatSirAnthonysappointmentwasinvalidbecausehewasnotarespectedmemberoftheIsmailicommunity.HowevernotwithstandingthepartiesagreementcontainedinArticle8oftheAgreementMr.HashwaniinsisteduponSirAnthonysappointmentarguingthattherequirementofArticle8thatthearbitratorsy