Radisson Hotels Aps Danmark v Hayat Otel Isletmeciligi Turizm Yatirim Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Dame Clare Moulder |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 1223 (Comm) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CL-2022-000037 |
[2023] EWHC 1223 (Comm)
Dame Clare Moulder
Case No: CL-2022-000037
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Ali Malek KC, Can Yeginsu and Calum Mulderrig (instructed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP) for the Claimant
Jonathan Dawid and Emilie Gonin (instructed by Gardner Leader LLP) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 12 th May 2023
Friday, 12 May 2023
( 14:56 pm)
Ruling by Dame Clare Moulder
The issue I have to determine is whether the judgment should be anonymised and redacted in order to preserve the confidentiality of the underlying arbitration.
This hearing was fixed to allow submissions to be made on the issue and the judgment handed down is currently restricted so that publication cannot take place pending this determination.
Radisson contends that the confidentiality of the arbitration should be preserved and therefore the following should be anonymised and redacted: firstly, the identities of the claimant and defendant; secondly, any details which would identify the claimant and defendants, for example names of individuals working for Radisson or Hayat; and, thirdly, the identity of the Tribunal.
Radisson submitted that the judgment should be anonymised to protect certain confidential information in the underlying arbitration in accordance with the parties' agreement to determine the underlying dispute in confidential proceedings and to protect the identities of the Tribunal members.
It was submitted that the parties' expectation of confidentiality should be given effect to and the public interest can be protected by the publication of the judgment, albeit with anonymisation.
Radisson has filed a witness statement from Mr Marsh, a partner in Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP, dated 3 May 2023, in support of Radisson's request to anonymise the judgment.
Hayat submitted that the fact of the arbitration, although not the identity of Hayat, has been referred to in Radisson's accounts and Hayat has no objection to the judgment being published and Hayat being identified.
In support of its submission, Hayat filed a witness statement of Mr Felton, a partner at the law firm of Gardner Leader, the firm having conduct of this matter on behalf of Hayat, dated 11 May 2023.
It was submitted for Radisson that the principles as to anonymisation are the same as those for publication and referred the court to Mrs Justice Jefford in Symbion Power LLC v Cenco Imtiaz Construction Company [2017] EWHC 348, where she said that:
“It seems to me that the same principles are broadly applicable to the issue of anonymisation as those in the Court of Appeal in [ Economic Department of City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Co [2004] EWCA Civ 314]”
The issue has been addressed more recently by Males LJ in the Manchester City Football Club Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1110 at [62]. Males LJ said:
“As explained in the City of Moscow, when considering whether a judgment on an arbitration claim should be published with or without anonymisation, 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. In general, the imperative of open justice, involving as it does the possibility of public scrutiny as a means by which confidence in the courts can be maintained and the administration of justice can be made transparent will require publication where this can be done without disclosing significant confidential information.” [emphasis added]
At [41] of his judgment in Manchester City case, Flaux LJ, quoted the City of Moscow case at [34], as follows:
“The consideration that parties have elected to arbitrate confidentially and privately cannot dictate the position in respect of arbitration claims brought to court under CPR rule 62.10. Clause 62.10 therefore only represents a starting point. Such proceedings are no longer consensual. The possibility of pursuing them exists in the public interest. The courts, when...
To continue reading
Request your trial