UK Construction and Law

A party that lost part of its section 68 challenge to an arbitration award cannot keep the judgment private, the Commercial Court rules

By Staff Writer  |  26 October 2026

The court refused a request, made only after the draft was circulated, to keep a judgment on a serious irregularity challenge confidential. It held that the request was tactical and that publication would disclose nothing of real commercial sensitivity.

Thomas Raphael KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court in the London Circuit Commercial Court, gave the publication judgment in Stonegate Farmers Ltd v Joey Heavey [2026] EWHC 2641 (Comm) on 20 October 2026. It explains an order he made on 13 October that his main judgment of 9 October, [2026] EWHC 2519 (Comm), and the order on it should be public.

The main judgment dealt with Stonegate's challenge under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to the arbitrator's second award of 14 July 2025. The judge found a serious irregularity, which he held was accidental, but adjourned the challenge until Stonegate's further challenge in a parallel arbitration against Chucks Farm Ltd is decided. The same arbitrator had decided substantially the same implied term point in both arbitrations. In the earlier Chucks Farm challenge, [2026] EWHC 742 (Comm), HHJ Russen KC allowed the section 68 challenge in a public judgment and remitted the award, and the arbitrator reached the same result again on 7 August 2026.

A request made after the draft

The section 68 hearing was in private, as CPR 62.10(3) provides for such claims. No one suggested the judgment should be private until the draft had been circulated and corrected. Stonegate then asked for it to remain confidential to the parties, chiefly so that it would not be deployed in the Chucks Farm further challenge.

Applying the Court of Appeal's guidance in Department of Economics of the City of Moscow v Bankers Trust [2005] QB 207, the judge held that a hearing in private does not decide whether the judgment is published. He found nothing in the main judgment that raised a specific or elevated need for confidentiality, and noted that Stonegate had been content for the Chucks Farm judgment to be public when it suited it.

Stonegate's position is highly tactical: it uses its position as party to both claims to cross-disclose material where it thinks the material assists it, but argues for segregation where it thinks the material is unhelpful.

Thomas Raphael KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Consistency between courts

The judge added that publication of section 68 judgments lets first instance judges see each other's reasoning, which matters where appeals are limited and parallel disputes overlap. He considered that the main judgment adds to the law, including on whether the arbitrator must be presumed to be acting reasonably and fairly when the court asks what result might otherwise have been reached. The judge declined to order redactions or anonymisation, and left any question of using the main judgment in the Chucks Farm proceedings to the judge hearing them. Stonegate confirmed it would not appeal, and the main judgment was published on 14 October 2026.

Here a private section 68 hearing did not justify a private judgment, and a confidentiality request first raised after the draft counted against the party making it.

Parties who bring arbitration claims to court should expect a reasoned section 68 judgment to be published unless it would disclose information that is genuinely confidential.