When Confidentiality Meets Public Interest in Arbitration
📂 Case Details
Case Title: Department of Economics, Policy and Development of the City of Moscow and another v Bankers Trust Co and another
Citation: [2005] QB 207; [2004] EWCA Civ 314
Court: Court of Appeal (England and Wales)
Judges: Sir Andrew Morritt V-C, Mance LJ, and Carnwath LJ
Dates: 10–11 February and 25 March 2004
Legal Area: Arbitration – Confidentiality and Public Access to Judgments
Parties:
Appellants: The Department of Economics, Policy and Development of the City of Moscow and the Government of Moscow
Respondents: Bankers Trust Company and International Industrial Bank
⚖️ The Background
The City of Moscow and Bankers Trust were involved in a private arbitration in London under the UNCITRAL Rules. After the award was made, Bankers Trust and another party challenged it in the High Court under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, claiming there had been a “serious irregularity.”
The High Court heard the challenge in private, following the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 62.10), which protect the confidentiality of arbitration matters.
After losing the challenge, Moscow wanted the court’s judgment to be made public, arguing that publication would show the international financial community that it had not defaulted on its financial obligations.
The Legal Issue
The main question was:
Should the High Court judgment about a private arbitration be made public, or should it remain confidential?
This raised a clash between two key principles:
Confidentiality of arbitration, a cornerstone of English arbitration law.
Public justice, protected by Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which generally requires judgments to be delivered publicly.
The Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeal decided that:
Arbitration proceedings begin in private as a rule, to respect the parties’ expectation of confidentiality.
However, courts must always be ready to balance this confidentiality against the public interest in transparency.
In this particular case, the judge was right to keep the judgment private because it contained highly confidential political and commercial information.
But the court allowed Moscow to publish a short summary of the case since it did not reveal any sensitive details.
Why This Case Matters
This decision clarifies how English courts handle the tension between privacy and transparency in arbitration:
Confidentiality remains the default position.
Courts may permit limited disclosure when it serves the public interest and does not harm the private nature of arbitration.
The ruling shows that while English law values openness, it also protects the integrity of arbitration as a private dispute resolution method.
Takeaway for Businesses
If your company is considering arbitration:
Expect privacy throughout the process — this is one of arbitration’s main advantages.
Be aware that courts can still decide on publication if public interest outweighs confidentiality.
When drafting arbitration clauses, make sure to clarify confidentiality expectations in advance.