The Court varied interim suppression orders to require disclosure of expert reports and the arbitral award from a related arbitration to non-party defendants in parallel Supreme Court proceedings, holding that where the same experts are relied upon by the plaintiff in both the arbitration and the court proceedings concerning the same underlying dispute (defective tennis courts), the public interest in open justice and the dictates of justice outweigh the public interest in preserving arbitral confidentiality under s 27I(1) of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2010 (NSW). The Court rejected the plaintiff's characterisation of the defendants as mere 'strangers' to the arbitration given the substantial overlap in issues, but declined to order disclosure of pleadings, submissions, affidavits and other arbitration materials beyond the expert evidence and the award. The Court also rejected arguments based on election, approbation/reprobation, and abuse of process, holding the relevant concern was simply the interests of justice.
The full text is available to signed-in members.