Newcastle United Football Company Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd & Ors

Newcastle United Football Company Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd & Ors

The cumulative circumstances relied on by NUFC, individually and collectively, would not lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude there was a real possibility of bias on the part of the second defendant. The 2017 Advice was not relevant to the arbitration, prior appointments were not excessive or financially significant, non-disclosure was inadvertent and not material, and the private communications were errors of judgment but not evidence of bias. The application for removal of the arbitrator is therefore dismissed. The hearing was properly held in private as the dispute was private and contractual, and no sufficient public interest justified a public hearing.

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 / Application for Removal of Arbitrator / Judgment on Application for Removal of Arbitrator and Application for Public Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal of Arbitrator for Apparent Bias, Confidentiality of Arbitration Proceedings, Disclosure Obligations of Arbitrators, Interpretation of Arbitration Rules
Arbitration Sports Law Commercial Law Removal of Arbitrator for Apparent Bias Confidentiality of Arbitration Proceedings Disclosure Obligations of Arbitrators Interpretation of Arbitration Rules

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 13 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 / Application for Removal of Arbitrator / Judgment on Application for Removal of Arbitrator and Application for Public Hearing

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The cumulative circumstances relied on by NUFC, individually and collectively, would not lead a fair-minded and informed observer to conclude there was a real possibility of bias on the part of the second defendant. The 2017 Advice was not relevant to the arbitration, prior appointments were not excessive or financially significant, non-disclosure was inadvertent and not material, and the private communications were errors of judgment but not evidence of bias. The application for removal of the arbitrator is therefore dismissed. The hearing was properly held in private as the dispute was private and contractual, and no sufficient public interest justified a public hearing.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application under section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for removal of the second defendant as arbitrator is dismissed.
  • The application for a public hearing is dismissed; the hearing was properly held in private.