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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll