Airbus Canada Limited Partnership v Joint Stock Company Ilyushin Finance Co.
[2024] EWHC 791 (Comm)
Radisson Hotels ApS Danmark v Hayat Otel İşletmeciliği Turizm Yatirim Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi
12 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 1223 (Comm)
High Court
A company challenged an arbitration decision in court. They wanted to keep the case secret, but the judge said most of it should be public because people need to know how courts handle these kinds of disputes. The names of the arbitrators will stay secret for now, though.
Key Facts
- •Radisson Hotels ApS Danmark brought a section 68 challenge against Hayat Otel İşletmeciliği Turizm Yatirim Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi following an ICC arbitration.
- •Radisson sought anonymisation and redaction of the judgment to protect the confidentiality of the arbitration.
- •Hayat did not object to being identified in the published judgment.
- •Radisson's 2019 accounts mentioned the arbitration.
- •The court considered the balance between the parties' expectation of privacy and the public interest in open justice.
Legal Principles
The principles for anonymisation are broadly the same as those for publication of judgments.
Symbion Power LLC v Cenco Imtiaz Construction Company [2017] EWHC 348; Economic Department of City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Co [2004] EWCA Civ 314
When considering publication with or without anonymisation, the court must weigh factors favouring publicity against preserving the confidentiality of the arbitration.
Manchester City Football Club Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1110
The fact that parties chose confidential arbitration doesn't dictate the position regarding court proceedings under CPR rule 62.10; courts act in the public interest.
Economic Department of City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Co [2004] EWCA Civ 314
In deciding whether to publish a judgment, the court weighs confidentiality and potential detriment to parties against the public interest in publication.
Manchester City Football Club Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1110
There's a public interest in publishing judgments determining applications under section 24 (and by extension, section 68) of the Arbitration Act to maintain fairness in arbitration.
Manchester City Football Club Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1110
Outcomes
The application for anonymity regarding the parties and witnesses was rejected.
The public interest in accessible and understandable judgments outweighed the parties' expectation of privacy, especially given that the fact of the arbitration was already public knowledge.
The court will redact the arbitrators' identities until they have an opportunity to apply for anonymity.
The arbitrators are not parties to the proceedings, but their right to privacy should be considered.