header-logo header-logo

06 May 2022 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 7977 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Manchester City v Premier League: transparency triumphs

80842
Masood Ahmed weighs the importance of confidentiality versus public interest in the publication of court arbitration judgments
  • The Court of Appeal recently considered the circumstances in which judgments of the court on challenges under sections 67 and 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 should be published or should remain private.
  • Parties to an arbitration should bear in mind that some aspects of their dispute may not remain confidential, even though the application is heard in private to begin with.

The confidential nature of arbitration means that the names of the parties and the nature of the dispute, which often involves sensitive commercial information, will remain hidden from public scrutiny. Confidentiality may, however, be compromised if the parties make an arbitration claim (ie applications to which the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) applies) to the Commercial Court. If the court decides to entertain such a claim, it may order that it be heard either in public or in private (CPR 62.10(1)). The court may also consider the extent

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll