Citation : Mordchai Ganz v Petronz FZE & Abraham Goren, [2024] EWHC 1011 (Com)
On 25 March 2024, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (the “High Court”) dismissed an application by one of the defendants to prevent the publication of a judgment relating to the challenge to an arbitral award.
The award, made under the rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”), had found that the arbitration agreement was void and that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction. The claimant challenged this decision before the English courts, but the High Court upheld the award. One of the defendants, A. Goren (“the Defendant”), opposed publication of the judgment, arguing that he had a legitimate expectation of confidentiality in the arbitration proceedings and that the award contained confidential information damaging to his reputation.
The High Court recalled that the protection of confidential information submitted in the course of arbitration is not unlimited, and that the parties’ legitimate expectations as to confidentiality must be balanced against the public interest in the publication of judgments (City of Moscow v Bankers Trust, [2004] EWCA Civ 314).
The High Court then rejected the Defendant’s arguments, holding that :
- The Defendant could not both argue that the arbitration agreement was void and expect the standard of protection afforded to arbitral proceedings to apply;
- The confidentiality protection afforded by the LCIA Rules does not extend to the judicial review of the award, which is a separate proceeding; and
- The alleged risk to the Defendant’s reputation arose from his own actions and therefore did not justify witholding publication of the judgment.
Instead, the High Court emphasised the public interest in understanding the practice of arbitration, in order to maintain confidence in the courts and ensure the transparency of justice, and therefore concluded that the public interest outweighed considerations of confidentiality in this case.
The High Court also recalled that the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings is not fully guaranteed where they are subject to judicial review, and in particular where the court finds that the arbitration agreement is void and that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction.
