Stonegate Farmers Limited v Joey Heavey

A private hearing of an arbitration claim does not make the resulting judgment private. The court must consider publication separately, balancing open justice against the parties’ confidentiality interests and the risk of disclosing significant confidential information. The public interest in scrutiny of arbitral fairness and in guidance on law or practice weighs in favour of publishing reasoned judgments, particularly on challenges under the Arbitration Act 1996. The parties’ preference for privacy is not decisive. The court may order publication where the balance favours it, with redaction or anonymisation considered where they can protect genuinely sensitive material.

Stonegate Farmers Limited challenged an arbitrator’s second award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. In the Main Judgment, Stonegate Farmers Limited v Joey Heavey [2026] EWHC 2519 (Comm), the court adjourned the challenge pending a further challenge in a separate dispute between Stonegate and Chucks Farm Limited. The section 68 hearing had been held in private.

After the Main Judgment was handed down, Stonegate sought an order keeping it and the consequential Order on Judgment private or confidential. It argued that publication could disclose confidential material and prejudice the further challenge involving Chucks Farm. Heavey sought publication. The issue was whether the Main Judgment and its order should be public, and whether any redactions or restrictions were justified.

1. The Main Judgment and Order on Judgment should be public. The court applied the principles in Department of Economics of the City of Moscow v Bankers Trust [2005] QB 207. A private hearing and the starting point under CPR 62.10 do not determine whether the resulting judgment should be published. The court must assess publication separately. A reasoned judgment should be public where that can be done without disclosing significant confidential information. The public interest is especially strong for section 68 judgments, which may promote fairness in arbitration and guide practitioners.

2. The court weighed those interests against confidentiality and possible prejudice. The Main Judgment disclosed no commercially sensitive or otherwise elevated confidential information. Stonegate identified no concrete prejudice from publication. Its inconsistent positions on publication of the connected Chucks Farm judgment also supported the conclusion that it had no genuine confidentiality concern. The court found no basis for redaction or anonymisation; proposed redactions would impair the Main Judgment’s coherence.

3. Publication would not decide whether the Main Judgment was admissible or relevant in the Chucks Farm further challenge. That court could determine those questions and exclude material from consideration if appropriate. The connected proceedings and the value of consistency supported making the Main Judgment available, but this court gave no direction about how it should be used there.

4. The court ordered the Main Judgment, the Order on Judgment, this Publication Judgment and the Publication Order to be public. It also directed that the July 2026 ruling and order be made public as necessary to understand the Main Judgment. The privacy of the section 68 hearing otherwise remained in place.

This was a further first-instance judgment. In the Main Judgment, Stonegate Farmers Limited v Joey Heavey [2026] EWHC 2519 (Comm) , the court adjourned the section 68 challenge pending determination of a further challenge in the separate Chucks Farm dispute. This judgment determined the publication and confidentiality question.