header-logo header-logo

18 September 2026 / James Glaysher
Issue: 8177 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration , Dispute resolution , ADR , Privacy
printer mail-detail

Lifting the confidentiality veil

259133
© Rawpixel.com/shutterstock

James Glaysher explores the use of arbitration material in open court

  • Arbitral confidentiality is not absolute: courts may permit disclosure where necessary to protect a party’s legitimate interests or serve the interests of justice.
  • Permission depends on relevance, necessity and sensitivity, with stronger justification required for material higher up the ‘sliding scale of arbitral confidentiality’.

Confidentiality remains one of the most attractive characteristics of arbitration, with agreements to arbitrate becoming an increasingly prominent choice for those with a particular interest in keeping their disputes private—notably parties to family disputes and contentious trusts and probate matters.

No absolutes

Given how synonymous it is with the arbitral process, it is perhaps surprising that confidentiality is not codified within the Arbitration Act itself. Mr Justice Foxton in A Corporation v Firm B and another [2025] EWHC 1092 (Comm) explained that it is ‘common ground that, as a matter of English law, the default rule is that the parties to an arbitration agreement will be taken to have impliedly

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll