1. Core Legal Position in England

(A) Default rule: implied confidentiality in arbitration

English law recognises an implied duty of confidentiality in arbitration agreements, covering:

• pleadings
• evidence
• hearings
• awards

This stems from:

• Dolling-Baker v Merrett [1990] 1 WLR 1205
• Ali Shipping Corp v Shipyard Trogir [1999] 1 WLR 314

The Court of Appeal in Ali Shipping confirmed confidentiality arises as an “essential corollary of privacy” of arbitration.

(B) But: English courts operate under open justice

Once arbitration issues reach court (e.g., challenges under ss. 67, 68, 69 Arbitration Act 1996), the default flips:

• court proceedings are public
• judgments are published
• anonymity/redaction is discretionary, not automatic

This creates structural tension with arbitral confidentiality.

2. The Central Conflict

Conflict in practice:

The conflict arises mainly when:

• arbitration awards are challenged in court
• enforcement proceedings are filed
• court must explain reasoning involving confidential arbitral material

3. Key Case Law Illustrating the Conflict (UK)

1. Dolling-Baker v Merrett [1990]

• Established implied confidentiality in arbitration
• Court recognised disclosure is limited unless justified
• Foundation of modern English arbitral confidentiality doctrine

Significance: baseline expectation of secrecy in arbitration.

2. Ali Shipping Corp v Shipyard Trogir [1999]

• Strong endorsement of confidentiality as inherent in arbitration
• Identified exceptions:
  • consent
  • court order
  • protection of legal rights
  • interests of justice

Significance: already introduces transparency “escape valves”.

3. Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners [2008] EWCA Civ 184

• Confirmed confidentiality extends to:
  • documents
  • evidence
  • award materials
• But emphasised it is not absolute

Key point: confidentiality can be overridden where necessary to protect legal rights or by court order.

4. Halliburton v Chubb Bermuda [2020] UKSC 48

• Supreme Court confirmed arbitration is:
  • private AND confidential
• But distinguished between:
  • confidentiality of proceedings
  • duties of disclosure and fairness (e.g., arbitrator disclosure)

Key tension: transparency obligations may override strict confidentiality to ensure fairness in the arbitral process itself.

5. Manchester City Football Club v Premier League [2021] EWCA Civ 1110

• Court allowed publication of judgment involving arbitration challenge
• Held:
  • open justice is a strong public interest factor
  • confidentiality does not automatically justify anonymisation

Key principle: transparency of court decisions may outweigh arbitral secrecy.

6. Mordchai Ganz v Petronz FZE [2024] EWHC 1011 (Comm)

• High Court published an un-anonymised judgment involving arbitration award challenge
• Court confirmed:
  • default is publication of judgments
  • confidentiality of arbitration does not automatically extend to court proceedings

Key impact: reinforces shift toward transparency in arbitration-related litigation.

7. A Corporation v Firm B [2025] EWHC 1092 (Comm)

• Court highlighted a “sliding scale of confidentiality”
• Some arbitral material may be protected via:
  • redactions
  • anonymisation
  • confidential annexes

Key idea: confidentiality is contextual, not absolute.

4. How UK Law Resolves the Conflict

(A) Hierarchy principle

When arbitration enters the court system:

Open justice generally prevails unless strong countervailing reasons exist

(B) Balancing exercise used by courts

Courts balance:

Factors supporting confidentiality:

• trade secrets
• sensitive commercial data
• third-party confidentiality
• ongoing commercial relationships

Factors supporting transparency:

• public interest in legal reasoning
• integrity of judicial process
• precedent value
• allegations of fraud or wrongdoing

(C) Resulting legal position

UK law adopts a dual-track approach:

1. Arbitration stage

• strong confidentiality (default implied term)

2. Court stage

• transparency (default rule)
• confidentiality only by exception (anonymisation/redaction/orders)

5. Key Doctrinal Tension

The conflict is often described as:

“Privacy of arbitration vs publicity of judicial supervision”

English courts justify transparency because:

• arbitration is a private consensual system
• but court review is part of the public justice system

Thus:

once parties invoke state courts, they accept exposure to open justice norms

6. Modern Trend in UK Law

Recent jurisprudence shows a gradual shift toward transparency, especially:

• publication of arbitration-related judgments
• limited anonymisation
• increasing emphasis on public interest in legal clarity
• recognition that arbitration confidentiality is “qualified, not absolute”

7. Conclusion

The UK does not resolve the conflict by choosing one principle over the other. Instead, it creates a structured hierarchy:

• Arbitration → confidentiality (default implied duty)
• Courts → transparency (open justice default)
• Resolution → case-by-case balancing

The key doctrinal evolution from cases like Manchester City, Ganz v Petronz, and A Corporation v Firm B is that:

arbitration confidentiality cannot “follow” disputes into court proceedings automatically.