Journal of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회지:중재연구)

The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Confidentiality and the Riddick Principle in International Commercial Arbitration

  • Received : 2021.08.15
  • Accepted : 2021.08.31
  • Published : 2021.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper seeks to provide a comprehensive review of the international rules of law on the obligations of confidentiality and its exceptions in international commercial arbitration, including the Riddick principle stemming from the common law jurisdiction. To this end, this article examines and analyzes developed countries' arbitration legislation including relevant case laws and the most recent leading institutional rules. Given the fact that the increasing use of discovery in international commercial arbitration and that the parties and practitioners in civil law countries are not familiar with the concept of the Riddick principle and its implied undertaking to a court, this article introduces the concept of the Riddick principle with some analysis for the recent case laws. Finally, this paper makes some suggestions to strengthen the compliance of confidentiality in international commercial arbitration by introducing new rules on confidentiality, inter alia, sanctions for breaching of the obligations of confidentiality.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahn, Keon-Hyung, "Main Issues and Implications of ICC's 2019 Updated Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration: A Focus on ICC's Policy on the Publication of Information Regarding Arbitral Tribunals and Awards", Journal of Arbitration Studies, Vol. 31. No. 3, 2019.
  2. Azzali, S., "Confidentiality vs. Transparency in Commercial Arbitration: A False Contradiction to Overcome", 2012, available at https://blogs.law.nyu.edu/transnational/ 2012/12/confidentiality-vs-transparency-in-commercial-arbitration-a-false/.
  3. Baizeau, D. and Richard, J., "Addressing the Issue of Confidentiality in Arbitration Proceedings: How is This Done in Practice?", Edited by Elliott Geisinger in Confidential and Restricted Access Information in International Arbitration, ASA Special Series No. 43, 2016.
  4. Baysal, P. and Cevik, B. K., "Document Production in International Arbitration: The Good or the Evil?", Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 2018, available at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/12/09/document-production-in-international-arbitration-the-good-or-the-evil/.
  5. Blackaby, N., Partasides, C., Redfern, A. and Hunter, M., Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 5 th Ed., Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
  6. Born, G., International Commercial Arbitration, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2009.
  7. Chan, L. S., et al, "Singapore High Court holds that the Riddick principle ceases to apply once a document has been used in open court", 2015, available at https://www.bakermckenzie.com/-/media/files/insight/publications/2015/02/singapore-high-court-holds-that-the-riddick-prin__/files/read-publication/fileattachment/al_singapore_riddickprinciple_feb14.pdf.
  8. Cremades, B. and Cortes, R., "The Principle of Confidentiality in Arbitration: A Necessary Crisis", Journal of Arbitration Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2013.
  9. Gaillard, E., "Le principe de confidentialite de l'arbitrage commercial international", Dalloz, Chron. 153, 1987.
  10. Harb, J.P. and Lobier, C., "New Arbitration Law in France: The Decree of January 13, 2011," Mealey's Int'l Arb. Rep., vol. 26, #3 March 2011.
  11. Henkel, C., The Work-Product Doctrine as a Means toward a Judicially Enforceable Duty of Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration, 37 N.C. J. OF INT'L L, 2012.
  12. Hwang, M. and Ling, L.M., "Confidentiality in Arbitration: The Criteria Adopted by Institutions", Singapore Institute of Arbitrators Newsletter, No. 2, 2005.
  13. Hwang, M. and Chung, K., "Defining the Indefinable: Practical Problems of Confidentiality in Arbitration", Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 26, No. 5, 2009.
  14. Lew, J., Mistelis, L. and Kroll, S., Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, The Hague/London/New York: Kluwer Law International, 2003.
  15. Poorooye, A. and Feehily, R., "Confidentiality and Transparency in International Commercial Arbitration: Finding the Right Balancing", Harvard Negotiation Law Review, Vol. 22:275, 2017.
  16. Samuel, M., "Confidentiality in International Commercial Arbitration: Bedrock or Window-Dressing?", Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 2017, available at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/02/21/confidentiality-international-commercial-arbitration-bedrock-window-dressing/.
  17. shih, L. and Phung, N., "Case Update: Singapore Court of Appeal Rules on the Riddick Undertaking for Disclosed Documents", 2020, available at https://themalaysianlawyer.com/2020/10/12/case-update-singapore-court-of-appeal-rules-on-the-riddick-undertaking-for-disclosed-documents/.
  18. Wachter, R., Yoon, G. and Lee, H.A., "Confidentiality in International IP Arbitration", 2021. available at https://www.iam-media.com/confidentiality-in-international-ip-arbitration.
  19. Wong, W. and Lalwani, P., "The applicability of the Riddick undertaking where the discovered documents allude to serious criminal wrongdoing - An update on Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd & Anor v Priscilla Lim Suk Ling & Ors [2019] SGHC 269", 2020, available at https://www.drewnapier.com/publications/The-applicability-of-the-Riddick-undertaking-where.