The dispute between Darrell Hair and the ICC was surprisingly abandoned as a draw yesterday after six days of what appeared to be turning into a timeless Test. Hair withdrew his complaint of racial discrimination against the governing body and will attend what the ICC called “a rehabilitation programme” to prove his fitness for a return to elite umpiring next year.

Yet while the ICC team left the London tribunal satisfied with the result, which did not involve a financial payoff, Hair may be rewarded, according to a sports lawyer who has been following the case.

“This claim has seemed to be a big risk for Hair and, at first, it looks like a capitulation, but this could work in his favour in two ways,” Nick Hurley, a partner specialising in employment and sports with Charles Russell, the City law firm, said. “There is a provision under Section 2 of the 1976 Race Relations Act that a person who has brought proceedings for racial discrimination cannot be victimised against, even if the allegation is proved false, which may help Hair if his contract is not renewed.”

It is unclear what the rehabilitation programme, to be drawn up by Doug Cowie, the ICC umpires manager, and David Richardson, the general manager, will involve. A programme of courses to improve his man-management and communications skills was suggested last November after the ICC board passed a vote of no-confidence in Hair, but did not take place.

The tribunal was told that there were no complaints about Hair’s interpretation of the Laws of cricket during the fourth Test match at the Brit Oval in August 2006, which was awarded to England after Pakistan refused to play, or over his career in general, although there were concerns about his judgment and diplomacy. Assuming that he complies with the programme and receives good reports for the lower-tier matches he umpires, the ICC board will have little reason not to renew his contract in March.

However, Hair could embarrass the body if it refuses, Hurley suggested. “So much interesting information has leaked into the public domain during this tribunal that there is no way that he is bound by confidentiality not to reveal it in a book,” Hurley said.

Hair was at pains not to jeopardise the new détente with his employers by speaking to the media. But Paul Gilbert, his lawyer, of Finers Stephens Innocent, said: “Darrell feels relieved and glad it’s all over and he does feel this is in the best interests of all parties. What we have now is a future for Darrell that leads to the possibility of his return to top-level umpiring.”

Under employment law, Hair will not have to pay the ICC’s costs, which are likely to have been substantial, given the number of officials and witnesses it has paid to put up in London as well as its legal fees. It is believed that, in defending this case, the ICC has spent more than the £250,000 that Hair asked for last year in exchange for his early retirement.

“We had absolutely no alternative but to defend this vigorously,” Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive, who had attempted to persuade the board to be lenient on Hair last November, said yesterday.

Hair’s continued employment will depend on whether Speed and the ICC management can soothe the rage of Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka. The umpire is unlikely to officiate in the Asia Cup in April, but could umpire in England’s home series against New Zealand next summer.

Perhaps Speed was embarking on a charm offensive when he chose to wear a Pakistan Cricket Board tie yesterday. Hair’s umpiring future could also depend on diplomatic tailoring.