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
21JivrajJivrajJivrajJivrajwww.fulbright.comApril2011ImplicationsforinstitutionalarbitrationsseatedinEnglandThedecisionalsohaspotentialramificationsforarbitrationagreementswhichprovideforinstitutionalarbitrationseatedinEnglandduetothewaythatcertaininstitutionalarbitrationrulesdealwithissuesrelatingtothenationalityofarbitrators.SincetheCourtofAppealrendereditsdecisiontheEnglishEqualityAct2010theActhascomeintoforceconsolidatingEnglishanti-discriminationlegislationincludingtheRegulationswhichimplementedEuropeanUniondirectivesforequaltreatmentinemploymentandoccupationregardlessofbelieforreligionintoasingleact.TheActadoptsbroadlythesamedenitionofemploymentandtherebyextendstheeffectofthedecisiontoalltheso-calledprotectedcharacteristicswhichtheActisintendedtosafeguard.Notablythoseprotectedcharacteristicsincluderacedenedtoincludethenationalityofanindividual.Toupholdtheperceptionoffairnessandequalityinthearbitrationprocessthearbitrationrulesofanumberofmajorarbitrationinstitutionsincludeprovisionsrelatingtothenationalityofarbitrators.ForexampleArticle5oftheICCRulesprovidesthatThesolearbitratororthechairmanoftheArbitralTribunalshallbeofanationalityotherthanthoseoftheparties.Article5oftheICCRulesisnotanabsoluterestrictionfurtherprovidingthatinsuitablecircumstancesthesolearbitratororthechairmanoftheArbitralTribunalmaybechosenfromacountryofwhichanyofthepartiesisanational.Article6oftheLCIARulesprovidesthatWherethepartiesareofdifferentnationalitiesasolearbitratororchairmanoftheArbitralTribunalshallnothavethesamenationalityasanypartyunlessthepartieswhoarenotofthesamenationalityastheproposedappointeeallagreeinwritingotherwise.InlightofthedecisionsuchprovisionsrelatingtonationalitymightbearguedtocontravenetheActgiventhetreatmentofthenationalityofthesolearbitratororchairmanofatribunal.AccordinglyanyarbitrationagreementwhichincorporatessuchrulesmayruntheriskofbeingfoundtobeinvalidbyanEnglishcourt.ImportantlyfollowingthereasoningoftheCourtofAppealindependingonthecircumstancesinthecaseatissuethewholeagreementtoarbitratemightbeheldtobeinvalidifthecourtconsidersitselfunabletosimplystrikeouttheoffendingnationalityrequirement.Consequentlypartieswillbelefttoresolvetheirdisputethroughthecourtsunlesstheyareabletoreachasubsequentagreementtoarbitratewhichcanbedifcultoncethepartiesarealreadyindispute.PermissiontoappealthedecisioninhavingbeengrantedattheendoflastyeartheUKSupremeCourtrecentlyannouncedthatitwillheartheappealon6and7April2011.PendingclarificationfromtheSupremeCourtpartiesshouldgivecarefulconsiderationtothedraftingoftheirarbitrationclausesparticularlythosethatincorporatearbitralruleswhichincludenationalityprovisionsforarbitratorsandwherethearbitrationistobeseatedinEnglandorWales.Specicallypartiesshouldconsiderincludinginanyarbitrationagreementwhichincludesreferencetosucharbitralrulesexpresslanguageprovidingthatanyprovisionrelatingtothenationalityofanarbitratorshallnotapply.DDu