UK: A World Of Choice: The Competition For International Arbitration Work – Part II

Last Updated: 27 October 2008
Article by Richard Fernyhough, QC
This article is part of a series: Click A World Of Choice: The Competition For International Arbitration Work – Part I for the previous article.

This is the second part of an edited version of a paper given to an evening meeting of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (East Asia Branch) on 3 December 2007. The author considers some of the principal factors that influence party choice of venue for international arbitrations, in particular factors arising from the legal environment. This part discussed the impact of privacy and confidentiality, arbitral impartiality and the implementation of new arbitration rules and legislation, in particular the UNCITRAL Model Law. Part I of this article was published at [2008] Asian DR 44.

Privacy And Confidentiality

Because arbitration is a private means of dispute resolution and privacy and confidentiality are general characteristics of the arbitration process, it might be assumed that the position is universal and therefore neutral as between legal regimes. Department of Economic Policy and Department of the City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Co1 was the occasion for an examination by the English Court of Appeal of what the law requires and permits by way of exception to obligations of privacy and confidentiality. An arbitration of a dispute arising under a finance agreement had been held under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976 Edn), during which allegations of corrupt practices were made against Moscow's employees. When a challenge to the award was made in the English High Court, Moscow argued initially that the judgment should be confidential, because the subject-matter of the arbitration was highly sensitive. When, however, it transpired that the award exonerated it completely, Moscow sought full publication, which the bankers resisted. Inadvertently, neither party had asked for the judgment to be protected from publication and a headnote and link to the complete judgment were made available by LAWTEL, the online legal database. The 1996 Act contains no provision as to privacy or confidentiality. The UK Government's Departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law had cited a London Business School study of Fortune 500 US corporations as supporting the view that – "There is no doubt whatever that users of commercial arbitration in England place much importance on privacy and confidentiality as essential features".

However, it was decided that the UK legislature would leave provision for privacy and confidentiality to the parties and, of course, a number of international commercial contracts contain express obligations on the parties in these respects. By contracts, the City of Moscow case, in the absence of party agreement, had to be decided under common law principles. A further complication was that the case concerned legal proceedings arising out of the arbitration rather than the arbitration itself. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision that the judgment should remain private, but Moscow's appeal succeeded insofar as a brief and factually neutral summary was allowed to remain on LAWTEL.

In the absence of detailed agreement between the parties, the principal institutional regimes make varying degrees of provision for confidentiality and privacy. Unsurprisingly, given the sensitivity of intellectual property disputes, the WIPO Arbitration Rules (2002 Edn) give the fullest protection2. By contrast, the most 'open' regime is the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (2006 Edn), which contemplate the possibility of attendance by "other parties"3 and publication of excerpts from decisions by the Centre4. Between these two extremes are several variants. The UNICTRAL Arbitration Rules provide for privacy of hearings unless the parties agree otherwise5 and for the award to be made public only by consent6. The ICC Rules are notably silent on the subject of party confidentiality obligations, although they do provide for private hearings unless the parties agree otherwise7. The AAA's ICDR International Arbitration Rules (2007 Edn) provide for privacy of hearings unless the parties otherwise agree8 and also make general provision as to confidentiality9. The LCIA Rules provide for both privacy and confidentiality unless otherwise agreed10.

"While in many cases ... variations [in national arbitration laws] will be rendered irrelevant by express party agreement, whether or not within institutional rules, the degree of protection afforded by the law could still be of crucial importance to the parties in certain situations ..."

There is likewise considerable variation in national laws. English law applies a basic presumption of privacy and confidentiality in the arbitration itself, although the opposite is the case in litigation. This presumption is subject to exceptions where there is party consent or an order of the court.

In Sweden, by contrast, the Supreme Court decision in Bulgarian Foreign Trade Bank v Al Trade Finance Inc (the Bulbank case)11 established that there is no inherent confidentiality obligation in arbitration under Swedish law. This appears to be somewhat similar to the position in Australia. In Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman12, the High Court of Australia rejected arguments based on English law in favour of implied terms in the arbitration agreement, Mason CJ stating that complete confidentiality cannot be achieved, no such obligation attaches automatically to witnesses and arbitration proceedings will sometimes be disclosed during litigation. Arbitrating parties may have to disclose information to insurers, shareholders and even to the market, in certain situations. In Commonwealth of Australia v Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd13, the New South Wales Court of Appeal stated that in certain circumstances the public interest need for transparency would operate to create an exception to confidentiality.

In the City of Moscow case, the Court of Appeal was referred to the position in New Zealand where, absent contrary agreement, 'strict confidentiality' would be implied in the arbitration itself, although not, either automatically or necessarily, in subsequent High Court proceedings. In the Privy Council case of Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd v European Reinsurance Co of Zurich14 it was noted that ss 45 and 46 of Bermuda's International Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1992 empowers the court expressly to hear such matters in private and to restrict reporting to enable "[t]he rights of privacy of the parties ... [to] be protected notwithstanding the court proceedings."15

While in many cases these variations will be rendered irrelevant by express party agreement, whether or not within institutional rules, the degree of protection afforded by the law could still be of crucial importance to the parties in certain situations, and not only in factual situations such as that in City of Moscow, where fraud or other invidious conduct is alleged. There are many other situations in which not merely the substance of the dispute but even the existence of a dispute between the parties is highly sensitive. In such circumstances, a legal system that places greater emphasis on privacy and confidentiality in the interests of the parties will be more attractive than one, like Australia, where transparency in the public interest imposes a different emphasis.

Confidence In The Legal System: Ensuring Impartiality

As is apparent from Professor Crivellaro's decision of the thought process of an arbitration practitioner in recommending a suitable centre for hearing an international dispute16, confidence in the legal system is essential and, if lost, even an established reputation may suffer. To this end, a legal system must balance two conflicting pressures, as exemplified by the recent TTMI/ASM litigation.

In ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England17, the Commercial Court had to deal with an application to remove the chairman of an arbitral tribunal hearing a shipping dispute. The Court held that the arbitrator should have recused himself because he had acted as counsel in a previous arbitration in which serious allegations were made (though not by him) against a witness in the second arbitration. Any objective independent observer would have shared the discomfort that the witness felt as to the change in the role from counsel to arbitrator, particularly as serious allegations concerning the witness had been made in the earlier arbitration. Thus, an allegation of apparent bias had been established.

"[A] legal system that places greater emphasis on privacy and confidentiality in the interests of the parties will be more attractive than one ... where transparency in the public interest imposes a different emphasis."

Subsequently, in ASM Shipping Ltd v Harris18, an application was made to remove the other two arbitrators, on the basis that they had inevitably been tainted by the first funding of apparent bias. The court refused this application, finding itself – "... unable to accept that there is an invariable rule, or it is necessarily the case, that where one member of a tribunal is tainted by apparent bias the whole tribunal is affected second-hand by apparent bias, and therefore should recuse themselves."19

This litigation illustrates well the tensions of the courts in trying to maintain confidence in standards while avoiding officious interference in the arbitral process. On the one hand, the harm done to the reputation of international arbitration would be great if apparent bias in the tribunal were ignored. Party autonomy is far-reaching, but the 1996 Act gives to the courts a supervisory jurisdiction to be exercised where harm to due process is perceived.

"The law of arbitration in every country will represent a balance between supervision and party autonomy ... This will undoubtedly be factored into the process of choice of forum by the parties and their advisors."

In the English legal system, amongst those familiar with it, there is no difficulty in a barrister appearing as an advocate in one case and as an arbitrator in another. This is not always understood by strangers to the system. However, a situation where one of the principal witnesses had experienced 'friction' with counsel and was now to be treated even-handedly by that counsel as an arbitrator a few months later, could not be so easily explained, even though no actual bias need exist.

Where, however, the perception of bias becomes tenuous and the court has to deal with an attempt to make it interfere in the arbitral process, it will decline to do so. The 'guilt by association' alleged in ASM v Harris was insufficient to warrant interference with the tribunal selected by the parties and the court was satisfied that it could decline to intervene without jeopardising confidence in English law.

In the recent Hong Kong case of Suen Wah Ling t/a Kong Luen Construction Engineering Co v China Harbour Engineering Co (Group) [2007] BLR 435, the Court of Appeal upheld the judge's refusal to set aside an arbitral award on the ground of bias where the arbitrator had, as a barrister, advised the application in conference in relation to the same matter, some three years before the arbitration began. The fact that both the applicant and the arbitrator had quite forgotten this fact was considered by the court to be highly material.

The law of arbitration in every country will represent a balance between supervision and party autonomy. However, different jurisdictions will distribute weight differently in the balance in favour of greater or lesser intervention. This will undoubtedly be factored into the process of choice of forum by the parties and their advisors.

The Global Market

Whatever the legislature and the courts do to assist a particularly country or city as a centre for international arbitration, its attractions (or drawbacks) can only be judged comparatively. Whilst, as indicated earlier in this article, international arbitration is not a perfect market, modern communications and, probably even more importantly, the global mindset of large commercial organisations mean that disputants, potential and actual, have choices.

Adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law is seen as key to developing confidence in developing centres, to match those established centres that have already done so, in some cases long ago. For example, although the Dubai International Arbitration Centre Rules (2007 Edn) do not seek to force the parties to accept Dubai as the seat of the arbitration, it is the default choice under the Rules and the intention is clearly to seek for Dubai a bigger share of the international arbitration market than it already has. The UAE become a signatory to the New York Convention in 2006 and, at time of writing, was expected imminently to pass a new arbitration law based on the Model Law, replacing the Egyptian-based provisions that combine unfamiliarity with a sense of regional limitation in the minds of some international advisers.

"The courts in many jurisdictions are becoming more and more sensitive to the changing needs and wishes of consumers of legal services ..."

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre continues to seek to 'raise its game'. All the evidence is that competition in the Pacific Rim is at high level. While the Pacific International Arbitration Centre that opened in Ho Chi Minh City on 25 April 2007 is not expected to threaten Hong Kong, Singapore or even Kuala Lumpur for some time to come, SIAC recognises that it has to be proactive to remain in its strong position.

As a leading Asian venue for ICC arbitrations, it is unsurprising that SIAC has increased its institutional supervision along ICC lines. Under the SIAC Rules (2007 Edn), SIAC has a right of veto over party-appointed arbitrators20 and, in a move echoing the role of the ICC International Court Arbitration, requires arbitrators to submit their awards to the Centre for scrutiny21.

CIETAC's Arbitration Rules (2005 Edn) were promulgated with the stated intention of bringing the Commission into line as a centre by:

  • increasing party autonomy and flexibility of procedure;
  • strengthening the powers of the arbitral tribunal;
  • fostering fairness and transparency; and
  • speeding up the arbitral process.

An article by Darren Fitzgerald questions whether the reforms go far enough22. In particular, he expresses concern that, while there is provision for non-PRC arbitrators, there is none for an arbitrator to be of a different nationality from either party, and that this could give foreign parties "the impression that the tribunal is stacked against them".23 Against these concerns must be set the statistical trend which shows that since 2000, CIETAC has become the most prolific of international arbitration centres, although to some extent this must be a reflection of the volume of economic activity, especially inward investment and foreign activity.


It is clear that the choice of forum for the determination of international disputes by arbitration is sensitive to a range of factors. Probably the most important factor is the attitude of the courts to supervision or control of the arbitral process. Parties today want autonomy over resolution of their disputes and will not take kindly to 'interference' by the courts. A 'hands off' approach is thus plainly the order of the day and is likely to remain so in this highly competitive and rapidly developing market.

The courts in many jurisdictions are becoming more and more sensitive to the changing needs and wishes of consumers of legal services24 and are proving to be remarkably willing to adapt legal rules so that the State receives the economic benefits of securing a larger slice of the growing and lucrative market in international arbitration. It remains a matter for discussion whether the differing legal and ancillary costs of conducting an arbitration in a particular location will also prove to be a factor in party choice of venue.


Number of international arbitration cases received

























* AAA figures for 2006 not available at the time of writing

These figures show a marked increase in the number of international arbitrations being started in the main centres. Whilst the figures cannot by themselves demonstrate a trend, it seems nonetheless that this market is generally expanding at the present time.

Even more remarkable in percentage terms, as these figures show, has been the growth of HKIAC. The UNCITRAL Model Law has been embodied in Hong Kong's Arbitration Ordinance (Cap341) since 1990 and the SAR's legal system displays most of the characteristics of its major competitors. Its status as the sole Asian centre for resolving Top Level Domain Name disputes has contributed significantly to its growing success.


1. [2004] 2 All ER 193.

2. Articles 73-76.

3. Article 32(2).

4. Rule 48(4).

5. Article 25.4.

6. Article 32.5.

7. Article 21.3.

8. Article 20.4.

9. Article 34.

10. Article 30.

11. Case 1881-99, 27 October 2000.

12. (1995) 128 ALR 391.

13. (1995) 36 NSWLR 662.

14. [2003] 1 WLR 1041.

15. Per Lord Hobouse.

16. See Part I of this article: [2008] Asian DR 44 at 45-46.

17. [2005] EWHC 2238, unreported (19 October 2005).

18. [2007] EWHC 1513, unreported (28 June 2006).

19. Paragraph 44 of the judgment, per Andrew Smith J.

20. Rule 5.3.

21. Rule 27.1.

22. CEITAC's New Arbitration Rules: Do the Reforms go far Enough? [2005] Asian DR 51.

23. Ibid, p 53.

24. Editorial note: "The courts are there to serve the business community rather than the other way round." – West Tankers Inc v RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA, The Front Comor [2007] UKHL 4, unreported (21 February 2007), per Lord Hoffman at para 20.

The articles and papers published by Keating Chambers are for the purpose of raising general awareness of issues and stimulating discussion. The contents must not be relied upon or applied in any given situation. There is no substitute for taking appropriate professional advice.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

This article is part of a series: Click A World Of Choice: The Competition For International Arbitration Work – Part I for the previous article.
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.