P v Q & Ors [2017] EWHC 148 (Comm) (03 February 2017)

P v Q & Ors [2017] EWHC 148 (Comm) (03 February 2017)

The court refused disclosure because the documents sought were not strictly necessary for the fair disposal of the s.24 removal application. The confidentiality of arbitral deliberations, the principle of minimal court intervention in arbitration, and the absence of exceptional circumstances precluded the order. Arbitrators are analogous to judges and should not be compelled to disclose deliberative material except in the rarest cases, which threshold was not met here.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 148 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: P; First Defendant: Q; Second Defendant: R; Third Defendant: S; Fourth Defendant: U
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (disclosure Application) / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure in Support of S.24 Arbitration Act 1996 Removal Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure in Arbitration, Removal of Arbitrators, Confidentiality of Arbitral Deliberations, Threshold for Interlocutory Relief, Judicial Supervision of Arbitration
Arbitration Civil Procedure Disclosure in Arbitration Removal of Arbitrators Confidentiality of Arbitral Deliberations Threshold for Interlocutory Relief Judicial Supervision of Arbitration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P

Claimant

Q

First Defendant

R

Second Defendant

S

Third Defendant

U

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (disclosure Application) / Interlocutory Application for Disclosure in Support of S.24 Arbitration Act 1996 Removal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order disclosure by arbitrators in support of a s.24 Arbitration Act 1996 removal application
  2. 2 What threshold and relevance tests apply to such disclosure applications
  3. 3 Whether confidentiality of arbitral deliberations precludes disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused disclosure because the documents sought were not strictly necessary for the fair disposal of the s.24 removal application. The confidentiality of arbitral deliberations, the principle of minimal court intervention in arbitration, and the absence of exceptional circumstances precluded the order. Arbitrators are analogous to judges and should not be compelled to disclose deliberative material except in the rarest cases, which threshold was not met here.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Disclosure by the co-arbitrators refused
  • No adjournment of the substantive s.24 removal application hearing ordered