## Facts

- Esso Australia Resources Ltd. and BHP Petroleum entities sold natural gas to two Victorian state-owned utilities under long-term gas sale agreements.
- The agreements included price-adjustment clauses requiring sellers to provide details supporting price changes tied to taxes and royalties.
- After tax and royalty changes, Esso/BHP sought price increases; the utilities disputed aspects of those increases.
- The disputes proceeded to private arbitrations pursuant to the agreements.
- The Victorian Minister sought access to documents and information provided by Esso/BHP in the arbitrations, asserting a need for administration of the energy portfolio and public interest oversight.
- Esso/BHP claimed the arbitration materials were confidential by implied contractual term and/or by a general legal rule said to attach to private arbitrations.
- Esso/BHP sought declarations preventing the utilities from disclosing arbitration-derived information to the Minister or others.

## Issues

1. Whether a broad duty of confidentiality over documents and information disclosed for a private arbitration should be implied as a term of the arbitration agreements and/or underlying contracts.
2. Whether confidentiality is an inherent incident of private arbitration at general law, absent express agreement.
3. Whether any confidentiality obligation can limit disclosure to a Minister exercising statutory information-gathering powers in relation to public utilities.

## Decision

- The High Court dismissed Esso/BHP’s appeal, largely affirming declarations that no broad implied confidentiality term restricted the utilities’ disclosure of arbitration materials.
- The Court held that an implied term of privacy applies to the conduct of arbitration hearings, but this does not entail general confidentiality over all documents and information exchanged for the arbitration.
- The Court rejected a general common-law rule that private arbitration is inherently confidential as to all materials.
- The Court required limited reformulation of declarations to confine permissible disclosure to the Minister to documents or information relevant to administration of the energy portfolio.

## Legal Principles

- Privacy of arbitral hearings (exclusion of the public) is distinct from confidentiality of documents and information; the former does not automatically create the latter.
- A general obligation of confidentiality over arbitration materials will not be implied merely because arbitration is private; implication requires orthodox criteria (e.g., necessity for business efficacy or obviousness).
- There is no universal common-law rule that commercial arbitration is confidential as to all materials; confidentiality must rest on:
  - express contractual terms,
  - a properly implied term supported by established tests, and/or
  - equitable breach-of-confidence principles for genuinely confidential information.
- Statutory powers enabling government oversight and information collection from public entities are not displaced by asserted arbitral confidentiality; any protective orders should be tailored to what is necessary.

## Conclusion

The High Court held that while commercial arbitration is generally conducted in private, parties are not subject to a blanket duty to keep all arbitration materials confidential absent a specific legal basis, and statutory ministerial powers to obtain relevant information from public utilities prevail over broad confidentiality claims.


Esso Austl. Res. Ltd. v. Plowman, 183 C.L.R. 10 (Austl. 1995)