Radisson Hotels ApS Danmark v Hayat Otel İşletmeciliği Turizm Yatirim Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi

In determining whether a judgment arising from confidential arbitration should be anonymised, the court must balance the parties’ expectations of privacy against the public interest in open justice and accessible judgments. Confidentiality does not dictate the outcome. Publication is generally required where it can occur without disclosing significant confidential information or causing specific detriment. The public interest includes enabling scrutiny of how the courts supervise arbitration and maintain appropriate standards of fairness. Anonymisation may be refused where it makes the judgment difficult to understand, particularly where the arbitration has already been broadly disclosed and a party does not object to identification. The identities of arbitrators may require separate consideration from those of the parties and witnesses.

Radisson brought a challenge under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 concerning an underlying confidential arbitration. It applied for the judgment to be anonymised and redacted to preserve the confidentiality of the arbitration and the identities of the tribunal members. Hayat did not object to publication identifying it and relied on the fact that the existence and broad nature of the arbitration had appeared in Radisson’s accounts.

The central issue was whether the expectation of privacy outweighed the public interest in publication of an intelligible judgment concerning the court’s supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration.

1. Application concerning the parties and witnesses. The application for anonymity of Radisson, Hayat and their witnesses was refused. The court balanced the parties’ expectation of privacy in the arbitration against the public interest in public judgments. The arbitration agreement and the parties’ expectations were relevant but could not dictate the treatment of proceedings before the court under CPR rule 62.10.
2. Open justice and arbitration supervision. The court applied the approach explained in Economic Department of City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Co [2004] EWCA Civ 314 and Manchester City Football Club Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd and others [2021] EWCA Civ 1110. Publication was required where it would not disclose significant confidential information. There was also a public interest in understanding how the court applies the law to maintain fairness in arbitral proceedings, even where the judgment raises no novel or generally important issue.
3. No specific confidential information had been identified whose disclosure would cause detriment. The existence and broad description of the arbitration had already appeared in Radisson’s accounts, and Hayat did not object to being identified. Anonymising the parties and witnesses would make the judgment difficult to follow and would impair its accessibility.
4. Arbitrators. The identities of the arbitrators were treated separately because they were not parties to the proceedings. Their names were to remain redacted temporarily to allow them an opportunity to apply for anonymity. If no application was made within 14 days, the judgment would be published in full.