Confidentiality in enforcement proceedings

Different views have been taken in different jurisdictions as to the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings and of any award issued at the end of those proceedings. The English view, set out in a series of cases the most important of which is now Ali Shipping Corporation v Shipyard Trogir [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 643, is that the parties to an arbitration are under an implied duty of confidentiality affecting the documents used in the arbitration and the arbitration itself, and that the duty is limited by consent, court order or where the interests of justice so require. The Australian view, in Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Minister for Energy and Minerals (1995) 183 CLR 10, is that there is no duty of confidentiality. The position in New Zealand has been resolved by legislation in favour of the English view, but the question in Television New Zealand Ltd v Langley Productions Ltd [2000] 2 NZLR 250, was whether confidentiality extended to enforcement proceedings.