that application before the LCIA Court). In separate judgments, Popplewell J dismissed both applications. THE DISCLOSURE APPLICATION Applicable principles In the disclosure application, P sought disclosure of documents passing between the arbitrators and the secretary, or relating to the role and tasks to be delegated to the secretary. Popplewell J reviewed the principles applicable to disclosure in support of interlocutory (i.e. interim) applications generally and concluded that it would be a rare case in which disclosure would satisfy the overriding objective (i.e. enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost). He also considered the particular context of arbitration, which requires disputes to be resolved without unnecessary delay or expense and with a minimum of intervention from the court - as laid out in sections 1 (a) and (c), 33(1 )(b) and 40(1) of the Arbitration Act. Applications such as P's section 24 removal application are an intrusion by the courts into the arbitral process and must be conducted with the minimum of delay and expense. Popplewell J expressed the following principles applicable to disclosure in an arbitration claim (which includes the removal of an arbitrator): • The arbitration claim must have a real prospect of success; • The documents sought must be strictly necessary for fair disposal of the arbitration claim; and • In exercising its discretion to order disclosure, the court will have regard to overriding objective but, in the particular context of arbitration: o The court will not normally order disclosure as it will be inimical to principles of court intervention which underpin the Arbitration Act. o Where the relevant arbitral institution has the power to order such disclosure but has declined to do so (as in this case), the court will not normally order disclosure; o The court will not ordinarily order disclosure of documents which the parties and tribunal have agreed are confidential; and o Only in the very rarest of cases, if ever, will arbitrators be required to give disclosure. Compelling reasons and exceptional circumstances will be needed. DECISION Applying the principles, Popplewell J determined the documents sought were not strictly necessary for the fair determination of the application for removal and that this was not a case with exceptional circumstances which would warrant the court exercising its discretion. More importantly, in the context of arbitral proceedings, the documents sought were part of the arbitrators' deliberations and were protected both by the LCIA Rules (and the LCIA Court's own decision not to order disclosure) and by the principles of confidentiality in so far as they relate to arbitrators. The application was dismissed. THE REMOVAL APPLICATION The removal application was founded on conduct in respect of a number of procedural decisions concerning documents and an application for a stay of the arbitration. Although based, at least in part, on the previous application for removal made to the LCIA Court, P's application shifted during the course of the application. This in itself drew criticism from Popplewell J, who said the changing pattern of allegations was entirely inappropriate on an application for removal of an arbitrator, and the arbitrator and opposing party were entitled to certainty and clarity in knowing what criticisms were being made.