header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 May 2022 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 7977 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Manchester City v Premier League: transparency triumphs

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll