Airbus Canada Limited Partnership v Joint Stock Company Ilyushin Finance Co.
[2024] EWHC 791 (Comm)
Mordchai Ganz v Petronz Fze & Anor
25 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 1011 (Comm)
High Court
A court case questioned whether a business dispute settled through arbitration should have its decision made public. The judge ruled that because the original arbitration agreement was invalid, the usual rules about keeping things secret didn't apply. The court's decision was therefore made public, along with an order about who had to pay court fees to whom.
Key Facts
- •Arbitration claim between Mordchai Ganz (Claimant) and Petronz FZE and Abraham Goren (Defendants).
- •Dispute over the validity of an arbitration agreement.
- •Court found no valid arbitration agreement.
- •Dispute over publication of the judgment.
- •Mr. Goren opposed publication citing confidentiality under LCIA rules.
- •Mr. Ganz sought publication.
- •Court considered the public interest in publication versus maintaining confidentiality.
Legal Principles
In deciding whether to publish a judgment arising from arbitration, the court must weigh the factors militating in favour of publicity against the desirability of preserving the confidentiality of the original arbitration and its subject matter.
City of Moscow v Bankers Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 314
A party seeking to protect confidential information does not necessarily have to prove positive detriment beyond the undermining of its expectation of confidentiality.
City of Moscow v Bankers Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 314
The court's supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration is a separate process from the arbitration itself; the LCIA rules do not prevent the court from publishing its judgment.
This case
The public interest in ensuring appropriate standards of fairness in the conduct of arbitrations and maintaining transparency in the administration of justice militates in favour of public judgments in respect of applications under section 68 of the Arbitration Act.
Bankers Trust (cited in this case)
Outcomes
The court found the arbitration agreement invalid and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Reasons set out in the judgment.
The court ordered the judgment to be published.
The factors in favour of publication outweighed the considerations against publication. The court's supervisory role and public interest in transparency were key factors. While confidentiality is important, it was outweighed by the lack of a valid arbitration agreement and the public interest in the operation and practice of arbitration, including points of law and practice of general interest like the approach to a rehearing.
Mr. Goren to pay 90% of Mr. Ganz's costs of the arbitration claim (excluding publication costs).
Mr. Goren was largely successful but unsuccessful on the summary judgment issue. Settlement discussions did not lead to an alteration of the cost order.
Mr. Goren to pay Mr. Ganz's costs for the publication application.
The publication issue was considered a separate application.
Mr. Ganz to pay 55% of Mr. Goren's costs on account.
Reflecting the costs order and the fact Mr. Goren pays the publication application costs.
Similar Cases
NMC Health PLC v Ernst & Young LLP
[2024] EWHC 2792 (Comm)
Radisson Hotels ApS Danmark v Hayat Otel İşletmeciliği Turizm Yatirim Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi
[2023] EWHC 1223 (Comm)
Palmat NV v Bluequest Resources AG
[2023] EWHC 2940 (Comm)
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited & Ors v Tughans (a firm)
[2022] EWHC 2825 (Comm)