Newcastle United Football Company Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 349 (Comm) (24 February 2021)

Newcastle United Football Company Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 349 (Comm) (24 February 2021)

The court held that no real possibility of bias was established against the second defendant. The prior advice given by the second defendant did not relate to the issues in the arbitration, the number and nature of previous appointments by PLL's solicitors did not exceed thresholds suggesting bias, and the non-disclosure was inadvertent and immaterial. The cumulative effect of the factors relied on by NUFC did not meet the objective test for apparent bias. The hearing was properly held in private as the dispute was a private contractual matter and the public interest did not outweigh the parties' agreement to arbitrate confidentially.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 349 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Newcastle United Football Company Limited; First Defendant: The Football Association Premier League Limited; Second Defendant: Michael Beloff QC; Third Defendant: Lord Neuberger; Fourth Defendant: Lord Dyson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (removal of Arbitrator and Public Hearing Application) / Judgment on Applications Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.24(1)(a) and CPR R.62.10(1)
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal of Arbitrator for Apparent Bias, Confidentiality of Arbitration Proceedings, Disclosure Obligations of Arbitrators, Interpretation of Arbitration Rules, Open Justice Principle
Arbitration Sports Law Civil Procedure Removal of Arbitrator for Apparent Bias Confidentiality of Arbitration Proceedings Disclosure Obligations of Arbitrators Interpretation of Arbitration Rules Open Justice Principle

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Newcastle United Football Company Limited

Claimant

The Football Association Premier League Limited

First Defendant

Michael Beloff QC

Second Defendant

Lord Neuberger

Third Defendant

Lord Dyson

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (removal of Arbitrator and Public Hearing Application) / Judgment on Applications Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.24(1)(a) and CPR R.62.10(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether circumstances exist giving rise to justifiable doubts as to the impartiality of the second defendant under s.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the hearing of the arbitration claim should be in public or private under CPR r.62.10(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that no real possibility of bias was established against the second defendant. The prior advice given by the second defendant did not relate to the issues in the arbitration, the number and nature of previous appointments by PLL's solicitors did not exceed thresholds suggesting bias, and the non-disclosure was inadvertent and immaterial. The cumulative effect of the factors relied on by NUFC did not meet the objective test for apparent bias. The hearing was properly held in private as the dispute was a private contractual matter and the public interest did not outweigh the parties' agreement to arbitrate confidentially.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • Section 24 application for removal of second defendant as arbitrator dismissed
  • Application for public hearing under CPR r.62.10(1) dismissed; hearing to remain private