Blog
Private prosecutions – A route to justice for the charity sector
Sophie Tang
When GCs or Heads of Legal select arbitration as the method of resolution of any future disputes arising out of their contract, typically they will have in mind the advantages of speed, cost-efficiency and procedural reliability generally associated with the arbitral process, particularly when compared to equivalent proceedings in domestic courts.
However, all too often in practice, the arbitral process can emulate the pitfalls of its litigation cousin; with flagrant delaying tactics deployed by recalcitrant respondents going unfettered by Tribunals disinclined to bare its teeth to prevent such conduct.
Expedited Arbitration Rules
No doubt mindful of this common complaint, many of the principal arbitral institutions have incorporated expedited procedure rules, designed to determined disputes cheaply, quickly and by a sole arbitrator.
For example, the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) introduced expedited rules in 2017. These rules apply by default if the amount in dispute is lower than $3 million (or lower than $2 million if the arbitration agreement was made between 1 March 2017 to 31 December 2020).
However, crucially, parties are also free to agree that the expedited rules apply regardless of the amount in dispute, and indeed can agree to opt-out even if the amount is below that threshold.
On 30 January 2026, the ICC published a Report, Toolkit and Factsheet on its expedited procedures (the “ICC Report”). The ICC Report quite fairly described the expedited procedures as responding to a “market need”, with them having been applied to 865 cases since 2017.
The ICC Report describes the key features of the expedited procedures as follows:
- Sole arbitrator: Arbitral tribunals operating under the expedited procedures consist by default of just one arbitrator, which is most consistent with time- and cost-effective proceedings.
- Curtailment of typical steps: The expedited procedures explicitly give the arbitral tribunal the “discretion to adopt such procedural measures as it considers appropriate”, including the power to exclude document production and limit the number, length and scope of written submissions and witness evidence. The tribunal may also dispense with a hearing and decide the disputes solely on the basis of documents, after having consulted with the parties.
- Fast awards: awards must be rendered within 6 months from the date of the case management conference and must be reasoned, albeit the ICC Court may extend this time limit following a reasoned request from the tribunal. According to the ICC Report, 63% of the final awards issued until 2024 were rendered on or around the six-month time limit.
- Costs: Arbitrators’ fees are reduced by 20% compared to the fees under the general scales.
The London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) Rules do not have a self-contained set of expedited provisions like its ICC counterpart, but does explicitly confer power on the Tribunal to make “any procedural order with a view to expediting the procedure to be adopted in the arbitration”; with a list of suggested provisions which include each of the features addressed in the ICC Report as summarised above.
Comment
The recent ICC Report explained the parties affirmatively chose to submit their disputes to its expedited procedures where they would not otherwise have applied in 16% of all expedited procedures between 2017 and 2024.
In our view, 16% is a surprisingly low proportion and is indicative of commercial parties (and by extension, their GCs and / or external legal advisers) ‘missing a trick’ across the arbitration sphere generally, not just in ICC arbitrations.
The adoption of expedited arbitration procedures, be that all or just some of the features described above; and even for disputes that are far in excess of the US$3 million threshold, provide parties with a golden opportunity to save time and costs, without having to compromise on obtaining a reliable determination.
For example, we are surprised by the number of arbitration agreements that specify the appointment of three arbitrators; given the resulting substantial increase in (i) arbitrator costs (ii) time for a tribunal to be formally constituted and (iii) difficulty in securing hearing dates for when all three members are free. Any perceived concerns about a determination being subjected to less scrutiny by one arbitrator than three should be allayed by the deep pool of highly capable practitioners in the market who can perform the role of sole arbitrator with aplomb.
Similarly, limiting the length or number of factual witness statements, even in high-value disputes, can help both the parties and tribunal to focus on the material facts only and prevent the statements becoming a quasi-pleading.
Ultimately, we recommend that parties to arbitrations seriously consider the expedition tools offered by arbitral institutions seriously at the outset of their dispute, and regardless of the amounts claimed, so as to avoid proceedings becoming unnecessarily cumbersome and costly.
About the author
James is an experienced solicitor-advocate specialising in international commercial arbitration and commercial litigation, and leads our International Arbitration practice.
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print