Spring Law Spring Law Spring Law Spring Law
  • Home
  • About
    • Our Approach
    • Our People
  • Services
    • Dispute Avoidance
    • General Counsel Advisory Services
    • Risk & Litigation Ready Audit
    • Employment & Consultancy Arrangements
    • Merger & Acquisition Risk Profiling
    • Rep Control
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Business Disputes
    • Personal Disputes
    • Investigations
    • Intelligence
    • Public Sector
    • Risk Control
    • Disputes Management
  • Insights
  • Contact
Spring Law Spring Law
  • Home
  • About
    • Our Approach
    • Our People
  • Services
    • Dispute Avoidance
    • General Counsel Advisory Services
    • Risk & Litigation Ready Audit
    • Employment & Consultancy Arrangements
    • Merger & Acquisition Risk Profiling
    • Rep Control
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Business Disputes
    • Personal Disputes
    • Investigations
    • Intelligence
    • Public Sector
    • Risk Control
    • Disputes Management
  • Insights
  • Contact
Nov 21
Courtroom gavel

Are arbitrations always confidential?

  • 21 November 2017

Arbitrations are often favoured by companies as an alternative to the Courts in order to resolve disputes. The main reason for this preference is that arbitrations subject to English law are confidential in nature.

This protects the commercial parties from any negative publicity and safeguards confidential information such as operational processes as well as the reason for the dispute itself (which could be commercially harmful). This is why many commercial contracts have arbitration clauses – this ensures that any dispute is resolved by arbitration in the first instance.

However, the established English law principle that arbitrations are confidential was recently exposed by the High Court in the case of Symbion Power LLC v Venco Imitiaz Construction Co [2017] EWCA 348 (TCC).

The normal established principle is that no details of the arbitration are permitted to be disclosed to third parties, which includes documents produced for or disclosed during the arbitration. This ring-fencing measure secures the confidentiality of such oftentimes sensitive information. These principles are also reflected in the rules governing the main arbitration institutions, such as The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA).

In Symbion, one party challenged the ICC award (judgment) against them. The ICC tribunal that determined the award was based in London and therefore subject to English law (and England was the nominated jurisdiction selected in the relevant contract). Symbion, having lost, challenged the award in the English High Court alleging serious irregularity. The High Court was the appropriate forum of appeal due to the English law jurisdiction clause in the contract.

Due to the custom of High Court decisions being published, Symbion requested that any such published judgment be anonymised, that is, not contain the names of the parties in order to preserve the confidentiality afforded by the ICC arbitration.

In response, the Court laid out the factors it would consider which included the concern that there is a public interest in publishing judgments concerning arbitrations to ensure that standards remain high in the conduct of arbitrations, especially in light of their confidential status. The Court went on that this factor has to be weighed up against the parties’ understandable interest in confidentiality.

However, the Court chose to reject Symbion’s submission that the judgment be anonymised as the ICC award had already been made public in the US and commented upon publically by the parties stateside. Therefore the Court concluded that this behaviour contradicted Symbion’s concern regarding confidentiality.

This case is a stark reminder that the confidentiality of arbitrations is not set in stone. Concerns regarding confidentiality should be raised at the outset of any arbitration appeal to the English Courts and necessary orders attained to ensure such confidence. In addition, conduct of the parties, especially regarding public pronouncements, should be carefully monitored if arbitration is underway or anticipated.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • E-Mail

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

  • Scope of Business Interruption clauses in light of Covid-19 25 September 2020
  • Restructuring & Insolvency Update: Furlough schemes and the administration of companies 25 June 2020
  • Restructuring & Insolvency Update: The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 15 June 2020
  • Commercial Loan Agreements: Does Covid-19 constitute a material change in circumstances? 1 June 2020
  • Vicarious liability for employee data breaches: the case of Morrison Supermarkets plc v Various Claimants 28 May 2020
LinkedIn icon
Crown Commercial Service Supplier logoAnnecto logoChambers UK logoThe Legal 500 UK logo

London | Chichester | Gibraltar

Pricing Complaints Legal Privacy Cookies

©2021 Spring Law Limited | Registered Company No. 5512395 | Website by Maroon Balloon & StudioMoo

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. For information on cookies and how we use them, please see our Cookie Policy