Arbitration Law Monthly

Newcastle United Football Co Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others [2021] EWHC 349 (Comm) is the first case to apply the guidance on arbitral bias given by the Supreme Court in Halliburton Co v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2021] Lloyd’s Rep IR 1. As in Halliburton, the issue was whether there had been a failure by the arbitrator to disclose relevant information on appointment. In subsequent proceedings, Newcastle United Football Co Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd [2021] EWHC 450 (Comm), HHJ Pelling QC held that there was no privacy reason to refuse the release of the judgment.

The decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Energy City Qatar Holding Co v Hub Street Equipment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2020] FCA 1116 concerned the enforcement of a New York Convention award under NSW legislation equivalent to section 103 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The main point of the case is that even if a ground for refusal of enforcement can be made out, the court retains a discretion to enforce the award if it is satisfied that there was no prejudice to the award debtor.

In Manchester City Football Club Ltd v Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others [2021] EWCA Civ 1110 the Court of Appeal has confirmed the importance of open justice and of publishing judicial decisions on matters arising in an arbitration unless there was a risk that confidential information would be disclosed to the prejudice of one or both of the parties.

Family law arbitrations are increasingly common although there is very little authority on them. In Haley v Haley [2020] EWCA Civ 1369 the Court of Appeal has reviewed the authorities on the test for an appeal against an arbitral award on a matter governed by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and has concluded that the usual appeal criteria in the Arbitration Act 1996 are too strict.

In IS Prime Ltd v TF Global Markets (UK) Ltd [2020] EWHC 3375 (Comm) the parties had a tiered dispute resolution provision which included non-binding “arbitration”. The issue before Andrew Baker J was whether such a process was “arbitration” within the Arbitration Act 1996 so as to require a stay of English proceedings brought before the process had been exhausted. If not, the further question was whether the proceedings should be stayed under the general powers of the court.