Abstract
Both privacy and confidentiality are among the major advantages of arbitration. That having been said, the two concepts differ in their nature significantly. The privacy element, does not presuppose or guarantee that any information, revealed in arbitration, is automatically also confidential. The right to privacy is recognised in English law as an implied right, which attaches to all agreements to arbitrate as an incident of such a contract, unless it is expressly excluded by agreement of the parties. In Oxford Shipping Co v Nippon Yesen Kaisha [The “Eastern Saga”],1 it was held that privacy, albeit implied, was nevertheless a substantive and core element of arbitration. This position, was also adopted in Australia in Esso/BHP v Plowman.2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Oxford Shipping Co v Nippon Yesen Kaisha [The “Eastern Saga”] [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 373 (QB).
- 2.
Esso/BHP v Plowman (1995) 128 A.L.R. 391, High Court of Australia.
- 3.
Thoma (2008, p. 300).
- 4.
Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services (AEGIS) v European Reinsurance Company of Zurich [2003] 1 All E.R. (Comm.) 253, §§ [1]–[22].
- 5.
Ali Shipping Co Ltd v Shipyard Trogir [1998] 2 All ER 136 (CA).
- 6.
Hassneh Insurance Co of Israel v Steuart J Mew, [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243 (Com.Ct.).
- 7.
Oxford Shipping Co v Nippon Yesen Kaisha [The “Eastern Saga”] [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 373 (QB).
- 8.
Sacor Maritima SA v. Repsol Petroleo SA [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 518 (QBD (Comm)).
- 9.
Aquator Shipping Ltd v Kleimar NV (The Capricorn) [1998] 2 Lloyds Rep 379.
- 10.
Ali Shipping Co. v Shipyard Trogir [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 643.
- 11.
Laker Airways Inc. v FLS Aerospace Ltd [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 45.
- 12.
Owners, Master and Crew of the Tug “Hamtun” v Owners of the Ship “St. John”, March 11, 1999, Admiralty Court.
- 13.
Associated Electric & Gas Ins. Serv. Ltd. v. European Reinsurance Co. of Zurich (Bermuda) [2003] UK PC 11 (Jan. 29, 2003) (AEGIS).
- 14.
Compania Espanola de Petroleos SA v Nereus Shipping SA, 527 F2d 966 (2d Cir. 1975).
- 15.
Volt Info. Sciences v Board of Trustees (489 US 468 (1989)).
- 16.
Baesler v Cont’tal Grain Co, 900 F2d. 1193 (8th Cir. 1990).
- 17.
Protective Life Ins. Corp. v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Corp. v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Corp., 873 F.2d 281 (11th Cir. 1989).
- 18.
Dolling-Baker v Merrett [1991] 2 All E.R. 890.
- 19.
Hassneh Insurance Co. of Israel v Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243.
- 20.
Insurance Co v Lloyd’s Syndicate [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 272.
- 21.
Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman (Minister for Energy and Minerals) (1995) 128 A.L.R. 391.
- 22.
Bulgarian Foreign Trade Bank Ltd. v. A.L. Trade Finance Inc., Judgment of October 27, 2000, Swedish Supreme Court.
- 23.
Ali Shipping Corporation v Shipyard Trogir [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 643.
- 24.
Glidepath BV and Others v Thompson and Others [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 549.
- 25.
Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 184.
- 26.
Amgen Inc v Kidney Center of Delaware County Ltd 879 F.Supp. 878 (N.D.III 1995).
- 27.
United States v Panhandle Eastern Corp. 118 FRD 346 (D.Del. 1988).
- 28.
Baldwin (1996, pp. 485–486).
- 29.
Cont’ship Containerlines, Ltd. v. PPG Industries, Inc., No. 00 Civ. 0194 RCCH BP, 2003 WL 1948807 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2003).
- 30.
Lawrence E. Jaffee Pension Plan v. Household International, Inc., No. Civ. A. 04-N-1228 (CBS, 04-X-0057), 2004 WL 1821968 (D. Colo. Aug. 13, 2004).
- 31.
Urban Box Office Network v. Interfase Managers No. 01 Civ. 8854 (LTS) (THK), 2004 WL 2375819 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2004).
- 32.
Re Application of Leonard Bernstein et al v On-Line Software International Inc. et al, 232 A.D.2d 336, 648 N.Y.S.2d 602.
- 33.
Industrotech Constructors Inc. v Duke University and Turner Construction Company 1984 67 N.C.App. 741, 314 S.E.2d 272, 17 Ed. Law Rep. 269.
- 34.
ITT Educational Services Inc. v Roberto Arce et al 2008, 533 F.3d 342; WL 2553998 (C.A. 5, June 27, 2008).
- 35.
Societe True North et Societe FCB Internationale v Bleustein et al, Cour d’Appel de Paris 1999, Rev Arb 2003, 189.
- 36.
Department of Economic Policy & Development of the City of Moscow (DEPD) v. Bankers Trust Co. [2003] EWHC 1337; [2003] 1 W.L.R. 2885.
- 37.
Insurance Co v Lloyd’s Syndicate [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 272.
- 38.
Ali Shipping Corp. v Shipyard Trogir [1991] 1 W.L.R. 314, C.A.
- 39.
Associated Electrics and Gas Insurance Ltd (Aegis) v. European Reinsurance Co of Zurich [2003] UKPC 11; [2003] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 253.
- 40.
Sacor Maritima SA v. Repsol Petroleo SA [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 518 (QBD (Comm)).
- 41.
Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v. Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada First Instance [2004] EWHC 343; [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 737, CA; [2004] EWCA 1660.
- 42.
Nesté Chemicals SA v DK Line SA (The Sargasso) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 6 [1994].
- 43.
Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Ltd v European Reinsurance Co. of Zurich UKPC 11, (2003)1 WLR 1041.
- 44.
United States v Panhandle Eastern Corp. 118 F.R.D. 346 (D. Del. 1988).
- 45.
Aita v Ojjeh, Judgment of 18 Feb. 1986, 1986 Revue de l’ Arbitrage 583.
- 46.
Esso/BHP v Plowman (1995) 128 A.L.R. 391, High Court of Australia.
- 47.
Ali Shipping v Shipyard Trogir [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 643.
- 48.
Oxford Shipping Co v Nippon Yesen Kaisha [The “Eastern Saga”] [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 373 (QB).
- 49.
Dolling-Baker v Merrett [1990] 1 WLR 1205.
- 50.
Hassnesh v Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243.
- 51.
Esso/BHP v Plowman (1995) 128 A.L.R. 391, High Court of Australia.
- 52.
Trade Finance Inc v Bulgarian Foreign Trade Bank Ltd Case No Y 1092-98, SVEA Court of Appeal.
- 53.
Transfeld Philippines Inc & Ors v Pacific Hydro Ltd & Ors [2006] VSC 175.
- 54.
Esso/BHP v Plowman (1995) 128 A.L.R. 391, High Court of Australia.
- 55.
In Transfeld Philippines Inc & Ors v Pacific Hydro Ltd & Ors [2006] VSC 175.
- 56.
Associated Electrics and Gas Insurance Ltd (Aegis) v. European Reinsurance Co of Zurich [2003] UKPC 11; [2003] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 253.
- 57.
[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 272.
- 58.
Ali Shipping Corporation v. Shipyard Trogir [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 643.
- 59.
United States v Panhandle Eastern Corp. et al, (D.Del. 1988) 118 F.R.D. 346.
- 60.
Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v. Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada [2004] EWHC 343; [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 737, CA; [2004] EWCA 1660.
- 61.
Aita v Ojjeh (1986) Revue de’l Arbitrage 583.
- 62.
Societe True North et Societe FCB Internationale v Bleustein et al, Cour d’Appel de Paris 1999, Rev Arb 2003, 189.
- 63.
Nafimco v Foster Wheeler Trading Company AG, Cour d’Appel de Paris, 22.01.2004.
- 64.
Mueller (2005, pp. 218–219).
- 65.
OLG Frankfurt, Beschl. v. 22.10.2004 – Case 2 Sch 01/04 (2).
- 66.
Bulgarian Foreign Trade Bank Ltd. v. A.L. Trade Finance Inc., Judgment of October 27, 2000, Swedish Supreme Court.
- 67.
Brown (2001, pp. 1015–1017).
- 68.
Esso/BHP v Plowman (1995) 128 A.L.R. 391, High Court of Australia.
- 69.
Transfeld Philippines Inc & Ors v Pacific Hydro Ltd & Ors [2006] VSC 175.
- 70.
Editorial (1995, pp. 231–233).
- 71.
Brown (2001, pp. 1000–1004).
- 72.
Dessemontet (1996).
- 73.
Brown (2001, pp. 1015–1017).
- 74.
Schmitz (2006, p. 1241).
- 75.
Schmitz (2006, p. 1245).
- 76.
Schmitz (2006, p. 1252).
- 77.
Raymond (2005, pp. 502–516).
- 78.
Such as the International Court of Arbitration, the International Bar Association and the International Chamber of Commerce.
- 79.
Trackman (2006, p. 5).
- 80.
Such as the development of uniform, expedited and enforceable procedures to protect the trademarks of established businesses from infringement and from cyber squatters.
- 81.
Trackman (2006, pp. 7–13).
- 82.
English lawyers, ordinarily engage in a more rigorous formulation, of legal doctrine, than American lawyers, who tend to treat the law in a more piecemeal fashion. Civil lawyers, who follow the French tradition of the Code Napoleon, tend to focus less intensively on the scientific analysis of concepts, like “causa” in the law of obligations, than those who adhere to the more recent and scientifically textured German Code, the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB).
- 83.
Trackman (2006, pp. 16–17).
- 84.
The London Court of International Arbitration states that changes in commercial dispute resolution procedures are, quite properly, driven by the end-user. That is, by the international business community.
- 85.
Trackman (2006, pp. 20–26).
- 86.
Trackman (2006, pp. 28–30).
- 87.
Trackman (2006, pp. 34–35).
- 88.
Trackman (2006, pp. 40–43).
- 89.
Raymond (2005, pp. 502–516).
- 90.
A way to check the above is to enquire whether the chosen country has adopted the UNCITREAL Model Law on Arbitration and the New York Convention.
- 91.
Nolan-Haley et al. (2005, pp. 196–229).
- 92.
Brown (2001, pp. 1017–1024).
- 93.
Lord Mance (2003, p. 58, §§ 2–3).
- 94.
Lord Mance (2003, p. 59, § 5).
- 95.
Sze and Peng Khoon (2007, p. v).
- 96.
Lord Mance (2003, p. 58, § 1).
- 97.
Lord Mance (2003, p. 60, §§ 7–8).
- 98.
Lord Mance (2003, pp. 61–62, §§ 10, 11, 13).
- 99.
Lord Mance (2003, p. 61, § 17).
- 100.
In Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman (1995) 128 ALR 391 and in Commonwealth of Australia v Cackatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd (1995) 36 NSWLR 662.
- 101.
Lord Mance (2003, pp. 70–71, §§ 26–27).
- 102.
Lord Mance (2003, pp. 73–74, §§ 30, 32).
- 103.
Lord Mance (2003, p. 75, § 34).
- 104.
Lord Mance (2003, pp. 76–77, § 37).
- 105.
Nariman (2004, p. 135).
References
Baldwin CD IV (1996) Protecting confidential and proprietary commercial information in international arbitration. Tex Int’l L J 36:451–494
Brown AC (2001) Presumption meets reality: an exploration of the confidentiality obligation in international commercial arbitration. Am U Int’l L Rev 16:969–1025
Dessemontet F (1996) Arbitration and confidentiality. Am Rev Int’l Arb 7(3–4):299–318. http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/cedidac/shared/Articles/Articles/Arbitration%20&%20Confidentiality.pdf. Accessed 24 August 2008
Lord Mance (2003) Lecture on confidentiality of arbitrations. In: Proceedings of the 2nd conference on dispute resolution, India, 13 Sept. 2003, pp 58–77
Mueller C (2005) La Confidentialite en Arbitrage Internationale Commerciale: Un Trompe-l’Oeil? ASA Bull 2005:216–240
Nariman F (2004) East meets west: tradition, globalization and the future of arbitration. Arb Int’l 20(2):123–138
Nolan-Haley J, Abramson H, Chew PK (2005) International conflict resolution: consensual alternative dispute resolution process. Thomson West, St. Paul, MN
Raymond AH (2005) Confidentiality in a forum of last resort: is the use of confidential information a good idea for business and society? Am Rev Int’l Arb 16:479–516
Schmitz AJ (2006) Untangling the privacy paradox in arbitration. U Kan L Rev 54:1211–1253
Sze QL, Peng Khoon EL (2007) Confidentiality in arbitration: how far does it extend? Academy, Singapore
Thoma I (2008) Confidentiality in English arbitration law: myths and realities about its legal nature. J Int’l Arb 25(3):299–314
Trackman L (2006) “Legal traditions” and international commercial arbitration. Am Rev Int’l Arb 17:1–43
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Noussia, K. (2010). Conclusions. In: Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10224-0_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10224-0_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-10223-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-10224-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)