NEWSLETTER-2019-metin

181 ARBITRATION LAW In this case, the court decided that it was in the interests of jus- tice to give access to the statement of case 8 , the transcript 9 which was already largely in the public domain, correspondences 10 that merely provided background information related to the appointment of B, witness statements 11 , but not the documents filed with, or attached to, the statement of case 12 or the skeleton arguments 13 . In relation to the second application, the court stated that it had power to grant final declarations and considered the relevant criteria and law. The court made a limited declaration that the CIArb and B were entitled, in the context of the disciplinary proceedings, to refer to, and/or rely on, the documents which the court ordered to be disclosed pursuant to CPR 5.4, notwithstanding the obligation of confidentiality which would otherwise apply, by reason of the public interest 14 . However, it is notable that the court refused the application for a declaration in relation to the circumstances of B’s nomination and appointment as arbitrator in matters concerning D. Therefore, the court refused the extension of the said declaration to other arbitration proceedings other than as between C and D. Conclusion This case is interesting as it demonstrates the importance placed on the quality and standards of arbitrators by the English court and the support given to the integrity of arbitration. It is also important in the context of the confidentiality of arbitra- tions and when there are matters concerning the public interest, the court may allow third parties to gain access to certain documents. 8 Para. 24 of [2019] EWHC 460 (Comm). 9 Para. 53 of [2019] EWHC 460 (Comm). 10 Para. 54 of [2019] EWHC 460 (Comm). 11 Para. 55 of [2019] EWHC 460 (Comm). 12 Para. 24 of [2019] EWHC 460 (Comm). 13 Para. 56 of [2019] EWHC 460 (Comm). 14 Para. 72 of [2019] EWHC 460 (Comm).