Whatsapp

" JIVRAJ v   JIVRAJ v. HASHWANI*: THE STRUGGLE TO UPHOLD COMMON SENSE   By   Naima Ahmed, Advocate High Court, Lahore   This research paper will focus on three main issues that arise out of this decision. Firstly, whether the determination that an arbitrator is not an employee justifiable. Secondly, where do the limits lie, if any, on party autonomy when selecting an arbitrator and how far this decision has been able to reconcile this with other forms of discrimination such as race, sex, caste and creed. Finally this paper will consider the wider public policy implications that arise as a result of this decision.   The status of an arbitrator had been in debate for decades. Mustill and Boyd have been of the view that "appointment of arbitrator is not like anything else at all". The appointment of an arbitrator is different from that of an accountant, lawyer or architect. However, the Supreme Court in Jivraj has finally laid to rest that the relationship between the arbitrator and the disputing parties 'naturally'1 does not fall within the definition of employment therefore an arbitrator is protected from anti-discrimination laws such as Equality Act 2010. The Supreme Court specifically drew a distinction between a person who offers a service under the direction of someone and gets remunerated in return and a person who is an independent provider of services and gets his fees as well though not under the parties' direction.2 An arbitrator falls under the latter. As Lew, Mistellis and Kroll highlighted an arbitrator is not just being remunerated for his experience and qualification but also for his ability to remain independent and impartial3. Arbitrator is classified as a quasi-judicial adjudicator4.   It is true that an…