Clyde & Co LLP v Abhimanyu Jalan

A judgment following a private hearing of an arbitration claim may be published where the open justice principle outweighs the confidentiality of the arbitration and publication will not disclose significant confidential information. The analysis is fact-sensitive and lies on a spectrum between private arbitration proceedings and court proceedings concerning an arbitration. Where the court finds that there is probably no valid arbitration agreement, that is a strong factor favouring publication. A proposed appeal does not ordinarily justify deferring publication. Indemnity costs require conduct out of the norm which has probably caused the receiving party to incur increased costs. Disproportionately aggressive conduct without that causal effect generally warrants costs on the standard basis. An interim payment on account may be fixed by a broad-brush assessment, allowing a sufficient margin for error.

The ruling concerned consequential issues following the court’s earlier dismissal of Clyde & Co LLP’s application for an anti-suit injunction in [2026] EWHC 403 (Comm). The underlying claim arose from employment-related proceedings in Dubai and Clyde’s asserted arbitration agreement.

The court considered whether the earlier judgment, delivered after a private hearing of an arbitration claim, should be published before Clyde’s proposed appeal; whether permission to appeal should be granted on three grounds; and whether Mr Jalan should receive indemnity costs and an interim payment on account. The central issues were the effect of the open justice principle, the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings, the prospects of an appeal against a discretionary injunction decision, and the basis for costs and interim-payment orders.

1. Publication. The judgment was ordered to be published seven days after delivery of this ruling. The open justice principle required publication unless the relevant confidentiality interests justified withholding it. Applying the principles in Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 and Department of Economic Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Co [2004] EWCA Civ 314, [2005] QB 207, the court treated publication as a balancing exercise between publicity and preserving the confidentiality of arbitration and its subject matter.
2. The judgment lay close to the open-justice end of that spectrum. The court had found that there was not a high probability of a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement. There was no significant confidential information in the judgment, and Clyde identified no particular passage requiring redaction. The possibility of an appeal did not justify deferring publication. Clyde was given seven days to seek a stay from the Court of Appeal, although permission for such an application was not granted.
3. Permission to appeal. Permission was refused on all three grounds. The court rejected the alleged conflation of the questions whether a binding arbitration agreement arose in 2006 and whether later MOHRE contracts rendered it inoperative. The evidence did not establish, to the required high probability, a still-valid arbitration agreement. The alternative expert-evidence argument had been raised only in reply and had no real prospect of success. The challenge to the exercise of discretion also failed: employment disputes could involve considerations different from ordinary commercial disputes, particularly because of domestic statutory regulation and potentially conflicting laws, and the court’s concern about Clyde’s treatment of its employee was a legitimate discretionary factor.
4. Costs. Clyde’s conduct was disproportionately aggressive and unnecessary, but it had not caused increased costs. Indemnity costs were therefore refused, and costs were ordered on the standard basis. Under CPR 44.2(8), the court ordered an interim payment of £173,693.17, representing 50 per cent of incurred costs, adopting a broad-brush approach with a sufficient margin for error. Payment was ordered within 14 days. There was no order on Mr Jalan’s application for a declaration that the court lacked jurisdiction.

The court’s earlier judgment dismissing Clyde’s application for an anti-suit injunction was given in [2026] EWHC 403 (Comm). In this ruling, the court refused permission to appeal and determined the consequential publication and costs issues.