header-logo header-logo

Manchester City v Premier League: transparency triumphs

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll