Stonegate Farmers v Heavey: High Court orders publication of arbitration challenge judgement

The High Court has ordered the publication of a judgement concerning Stonegate Farmers Limited’s challenge to an arbitration award, finding that open justice and the public interest in transparent arbitration proceedings outweighed the company’s objections to disclosure.

In Stonegate Farmers Limited v Joey Heavey [2026] EWHC 2641 (Comm), Thomas Raphael KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, ruled that the substantive judgement and associated order should be made public, without redactions or anonymisation.

The decision concerned a section 68 challenge under the Arbitration Act 1996 to a second award dated 14 July 2025. In an earlier judgement handed down on 9 October 2026, the court had adjourned Stonegate’s challenge pending the determination of a further challenge arising from a related dispute with Chucks Farm Limited.

The disputes involved substantially similar issues concerning the implication of a term into Stonegate’s standard terms and conditions. The same arbitrator, Anthony Glaister, had reached parallel conclusions in both cases. A previous challenge in the Chucks Farm dispute had succeeded, with the matter remitted to the arbitrator, who subsequently reached the same result in a further award. Stonegate challenged that award in September 2026.

The immediate question was whether the judgement in the Heavey proceedings should remain private or confidential because of its potential relevance to the Chucks Farm challenge.

Open justice and arbitration confidentiality

The court applied the principles established in Department of Economics of the City of Moscow v Bankers Trust [2005] QB 207. Those principles distinguish between the privacy of an arbitration-related hearing and the publication of the resulting judgement. A hearing may properly take place in private without requiring the court’s reasons to remain confidential.

The judge emphasised that a party seeking to prevent publication bears a substantial burden. The court must weigh the public interest in transparency against the need to protect genuinely confidential information, including commercially sensitive material.

In this case, Stonegate had not demonstrated that the substantive judgement contained information giving rise to significant confidentiality concerns. The discussion of the underlying commercial dispute, the procedural history of the arbitration and the related awards was limited and did not reveal material of heightened commercial sensitivity.

The judge also considered the public interest in maintaining appropriate standards of fairness in arbitration. Reasoned judgements on section 68 challenges can provide guidance on the operation of the statutory framework and promote consistency between courts dealing with related disputes.

Tactical objections rejected

Stonegate argued that publication should be delayed until the Chucks Farm challenge had been determined. It contended that disclosure could influence the court deciding that dispute, particularly over the admissibility and relevance of material discussed in the judgement.

The judge rejected those concerns. Publication would not determine whether the judgement could be relied upon in the separate proceedings. That question would remain for the judge hearing the Chucks Farm challenge, who could decide what material to admit, consider or exclude.

The court also noted that Stonegate had relied on the public judgement in the earlier Chucks Farm proceedings to support its own arguments. Its position on confidentiality had emerged only after the draft judgement in the present case became available. The judge considered this selective approach a further indication that the claimed confidentiality concerns were not genuine.

Nor was a limited summary or partial redaction appropriate. Such measures would impair the coherence of the reasoning without addressing any demonstrated confidentiality risk.

The judge concluded that the public interest in publication substantially outweighed the limited confidentiality interests engaged. The substantive judgement and order, together with the publication judgement and associated order, were therefore to remain public. No redactions or anonymisation were required.

The ruling reinforces the distinction between private arbitration proceedings and the public nature of reasoned court judgements arising from them. Confidentiality is not automatic merely because an arbitration claim was heard in private, particularly where publication supports transparency, consistency and the development of legal principles.