ICC arbitration awards a reasonable expectation of privacy

News / / ICC arbitration awards a reasonable expectation of privacy

Publication of arbitration awardsUnder this section of the Note, the ICC first explains that publicising and disseminating information about arbitration has been one of the ICC's commitments since its creation and an instrumental factor in facilitating the development of trade worldwide (paragraph 40) Paragraph 41 then goes on to state that all parties and arbitrators involved in ICC arbitrations accept that, as of 01 January 2019, all ICC arbitration final and interim awards from current arbitrations, including dissenting or concurring opinions, may be published in their entirety This may obviously cause concern amongst commercial parties who chose arbitration, over litigation, due to the perceived privacy and confidentiality of the process But all is not lost There are also a number of safeguards included in the Note which the parties may take advantage of to delay or prevent publication For example, the Secretariat of the ICC will remind the parties at the time the final award is notified that the award may be published There is also a two year period from that date before which it will be published, although the parties can agree to a longer or shorter period should they so wish Further, it is open to any party to opt out of publication, or insist that the award is first partially or fully anonymised or pseudonymised Publication will also be subject to any specific confidentiality agreement between the parties which covers the arbitration where such a provision exists, the parties will be asked to positively provide their consent to publication In practice, therefore, it is relatively straightforward to prevent publication of an award However, it is now necessary for parties to opt out, rather than opt in (other than as set out above), and parties should be alive to this if they receive final awards in ICC arbitrations on or after 01 January 2019 Although this change may initially be met with consternation, there is, of course, a potential upside The confidential nature of arbitration has long meant that any new or novel legal finding in an award cannot be relied upon in subsequent disputes If this new policy succeeds in widening the available arbitration awards that can be studied, then greater certainty about particular points of law or procedure may be achieved if they can be used as precedents However, it remains to be seen (i) whether parties will be willing to have their awards published, even in an anonymisedpseudonymised form, and (ii) whether such anonymisationpseudonymisation will be fit for purpose in all industries For example, we can foresee situations that might arise in the energy industry where parties may be identified from the facts of the case through general industry knowledge, even where sensitive party information has been successfully redactedIf confidentiality is an overriding concern, then to ensure it is secured it may be prudent for parties to anticipate this change in policy by including specific arbitration confidentiality provisions in any contracts that choose ICC arbitration as the dispute resolution forum Correctly drafted, this should require the parties to positively consent to publication of the arbitration award, rather than having to opt out of publication as would be required by the default position under the new policy Arbitrator independence and impartialityA further noteworthy area of guidance in the Note relates to section IIIA in relation to the independence and impartiality of arbitrators Although not a new requirement, the ICC Rules require all prospective arbitrators to complete and sign a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence (Article 11(2) of the 2017 Rules) As part of this statement, the prospective arbitrator is obliged to disclose hellip any facts or circumstances which might be of such a nature as to call into question the arbitrator's independence in the eyes of the parties, as well as any circumstances that could give rise to reasonable doubts as to the arbitrator's impartialityWhat is new in the Note, though, is the more detailed guidance, at paragraph 23, as to the type of relevant circumstancesnbspthat should be disclosed The nine examples provided (which are explicitly stated not to be exhaustive) include where the potential arbitrator acts or has acted as arbitrator in related cases, and where the potential arbitrator acts or has acted as arbitrator in a case involving one of the parties or its affiliates Both of these examples arose in the case of Halliburton v Chubb, which we wrote up in a previous Bulletin, and which is currently awaiting appeal to the Supreme Court We will provide a further update on this appeal in due course In addition, the Note states that potential arbitrators should also consider, and disclose if necessary, relationships that they may have with non-parties to the arbitration who may nevertheless have an interest in the outcome of it (see paragraph 24)Datanbspnbsp Subsection D of section VI of the Note also provides guidance on the position in relation to personal data It confirms the ICC's compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and states that by participating in an ICC arbitration, every individual involved with the arbitration (including the parties and their representatives, the administrative secretary, the witnesses, the experts, and any other person involved in the arbitration in any capacity) accepts that collecting, transferring and archiving personal data is necessary for the purposes of the arbitration, and that the data may be published in the event of publication of the award It is up to each party to make the relevant people aware of this requirement

Related sectors:

Related services:

Related news & insights

Insights / Climate Change Litigation Continueth – The Scottish Case: Greenpeace v. BEIS and the OGA (and BP too)

15-10-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

The Scottish Court of Session has declared that dealing with the global environmental impact of the consumption of oil is a political matter for the UK Government, not a legal issue for the UK Courts in considering the validity of approval to drill new oil wells in a single field.

Climate Change Litigation Continueth – The Scottish Case: Greenpeace v. BEIS and the OGA (and BP too)

News / AfCFTA and Energy & Infrastructure

11-10-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure, Maritime

This article is the third in a series of articles looking at the impact of the African Continental Free Trade Area (the “AfCFTA”) on various practice areas and industry sectors that our clients operate in. This article focuses on Energy and Infrastructure and addresses some of the key questions our clients have asked us.

AfCFTA and Energy & Infrastructure

Insights / Supreme Court clarifies lawful act of duress

21-09-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

In Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (Rev 2) [2019] EWCA Civ 828, the Supreme Court confirmed the existence of the doctrine of ‘lawful act duress’ under English law and its limited scope in commercial transactions.

Supreme Court clarifies lawful act of duress

News / Shell agrees pay out to Nigerian community to settle long-running oil spill dispute

17-08-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

In 1991, the Ejama-Ebubu people began a legal campaign to hold Shell Nigeria (“Shell”) accountable for an oil spill that occurred in 1970. Shell accepted that these oil spills had occurred, but argued that these were caused by “third parties” during the Biafran war, for which Shell should not be held liable. Almost 20 years later, in 2010, a Nigerian Federal court ordered Shell to pay 17 billion naira to the Ejama-Ebubu community. Shell has unsuccessfully attempted to challenge this ruling over several years and, in November 2020, the Nigerian Supreme Court ruled that Shell could no longer appeal the decision.

Shell agrees pay out to Nigerian community to settle long-running oil spill dispute

News / The Bribery Act: ten years on

19-07-2021 / Energy & Infrastructure

The Bribery Act: ten years on

Quick links

The Legal 500 2021

“Very available and responsive to company developments in real time. Frank, clear advice – not just the ‘easy’ answer.”

The Legal 500 2022

“The solicitors who have handled our employment related issues are of the highest quality in terms of their specialist area of expertise, their professionalism and their approach to us as clients and as people. Special mention has to be made of Laura Livingstone. Laura became a key member of our team and felt more like a colleague than an external adviser – a colleague you could rely upon. Laura’s attention to detail, professionalism and responsiveness was second to none. Laura has come to know and understand us as individuals and this has enabled her to personalise her advice and even sometimes to preempt our future requirements. We have a very special and extremely valuable relationship with her and the firm.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“Ince are an excellent “fit” with our specific needs. The firm has consistently provided a broad range of personnel-related advice and in our experience that advice has been consistently of the very highest professional standard: it has been timely, comprehensive, accurate and at a cost which is commensurate with the budget of an organisation of our size.”

- The Legal 500

The Legal 500 2022

“The firm has an unusually high degree of insight into the practices and policies required by the Gambling Commission as regards compliance with its own requirements and conditions – particularly Andrew Tait, derived from his previous in-house experience.”

- The Legal 500