International Arbitration: Time and Cost Efficiency - The ICC Commission Publishes Reports on its Expedited Procedure Provisions

Some disputes do not warrant a lengthy and costly dispute resolution process. That is particularly the case where the issues in dispute or the facts of the matter are straightforward.

Consequently, many of the leading international arbitration institutions have Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP), which are specifically designed to resolve disputes more quickly and cost-effectively, typically by featuring a sole arbitrator, shortened timeframes for awards and a preference for “documents-only” proceedings.¹

One such institution is the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), which adopted EPP in 2017. On 30 January 2026, the ICC published a Report, Toolkit and Factsheet on EPP (available here), confirming its uptake and providing best practices for parties and arbitrators.

As reported by Ana Serra y Moura, Deputy Secretary General of the ICC Court of Arbitration, the ICC has recently hit the milestone of 1,000 EPP arbitrations.² Below is a summary of the key takeaways from the ICC publications.

Arbitration Users have Embraced EPP

Under the ICC Rules, EPP applies by default if the amount in dispute is lower than $3 million (or lower than $2 million if the arbitration agreement was concluded between 1 March 2017 to 31 December 2020). However, parties may object to the use of EPP, and the ICC Court can decide that EPP shall not or no longer apply to a specific dispute, if the circumstances so require.

Parties can also expressly agree to include or exclude EPP irrespective of the amount in dispute or the date of the arbitration agreement and should draft that inclusion or exclusion into their arbitration agreement accordingly or, if the arbitration agreement has already been made, enter into a separate agreement.

The latest data show that 16% of EPP cases come from parties expressly opting into the process and that in only 3.6% of cases did parties opt-out.

Importantly, while originally intended for simple, low-value disputes, EPP has also been used for more complex, high-stake cases:

• 5.6% of EPP cases had amounts in dispute higher than $3 million.
• One case was greater than $100 million.
• 19% of EPP cases involved multiple parties.

These numbers are an interesting reflection of users’ expectations, with speed and efficiency remaining key to a not insignificant number of disputes.

Faster, Cheaper but Effective Proceedings

Without doubt, the EPP varies the standard ICC Rules such that the time and cost of a dispute can be significantly curtailed.

The recent data demonstrate that arbitrations can (and have been) run by parties and tribunals within more streamlined, simplified (and thus cheaper) procedures.

Notably:

• EPP arbitrations generally have a sole arbitrator, with the ICC Court having the power to appoint a sole arbitrator even where the arbitration agreement provides for three arbitrators – this was done in 7.5% of reported cases. Challenges to arbitrators were also rare and limited to 1.4% of EPP cases.
• Arbitrators’ fees are 20% lower in EPP cases, to take into account the brevity of the proceedings. This, combined with the predominance of sole arbitrators, contributes to lowering the total costs of arbitration, as confirmed in the ICC report.
• The case management conference (CMC) must take place within 15 days of the file being transmitted to the arbitrator – while there are no data confirming if this timeframe was met, the ICC insists on this being a key component of the overall objective of EPP – to provide a speedy resolution of issues in dispute.
• The tribunal has the power to streamline the procedure and decide the dispute on the basis of documents only, with no or limited document production, no hearing, no examination of witnesses or experts and no post-hearing briefs, which in turn is expected to drive down costs. Such simplification of the proceedings is clearly reflected in the statistics:
  • In 79% of EPP cases, there was no document production.
  • Expert reports were only filed in 5.2% of cases.
  • There were no post-hearing briefs in 70% of cases.
• Parties should generally expect tribunals to proactively manage the proceedings – more so than in a standard case. The toolkit specifies: EPP tribunals should “suggest procedural options for the parties to consider, strictly enforce time limits, respond firmly to dilatory tactics and intervene promptly in the event of procedural disputes”.
• The award, which goes through the same scrutiny process that the ICC Court applies to standard awards, must be issued within six months of the CMC, and this deadline is key to the process. In practice, 63% of awards made under the EPP were rendered on or around the six-month deadline and, unjustified delays only occurred in 7% of the cases such that the ICC Court reduced the arbitrators’ fees further.

The ICC notes that the quality of awards rendered in EPP was as good as any standard ICC award.

Conclusion

In response to increased pressure from arbitration users for more time and cost-efficient proceedings, arbitration institutions have, in the last decade, introduced a variety of mechanisms to provide more speedy and effective resolution of disputes. Notable examples are the introduction of provisions for the summary dismissal of claims,³ policies allowing for the reduction of arbitrators’ fees when awards are delayed,⁴ artificial intelligence (AI) arbitrator tools,⁵ and the use of EPP, as reported in this alert.

The EPP offers parties a compressed, efficient path to resolution of simpler or smaller claims (whilst also being capable of dealing with much larger cases, if the parties so wish).

The onus is on the tribunal to conduct and manage the EPP effectively, making broader use of their discretion and authority to control the proceedings, adapt the procedure to what is necessary and tailored to the dispute and, in doing so, rein in attempts to delay the proceedings or make them unduly burdensome.

The statistics released by the ICC show that the EPP is a realistic and practical option that parties should consider at the outset of an ICC arbitration, or when drafting their arbitration clause. Overall,  since they were introduced in 2017, the EPP has been a success, and the ICC is considering to reflect this success in the rules by (a) increasing the threshold for EPP cases to $4 million, (b) introducing provisions for opt-in, super-fast track arbitrations and (c) removing the Terms of Reference as a requirement for standard ICC arbitrations.

The trend for more cost and time-efficient arbitrations is one that is set to continue, with institutions across the world looking at ways of tightening arbitration procedures for the benefit of arbitrators and users alike. This remains a developing area; more to come.

^{1 The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) introduced expedited procedure rules in 2022; the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in 2021; the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) in 2010; the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) in 2008; and the China International Economic and Trade Commission (CIETAC) in 1994. The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) is the odd one out with no dedicated expedited procedure rules, but the LCIA instead emphasises flexibility in its rules allowing the tribunal to direct proceedings as it sees fit, including by expediting any stage.
2 This includes +150 new EPP arbitrations that started in 2025 and that are thus not captured in the reports.
3 The LCIA, SIAC, CIETAC and HKIAC rules, amongst others, expressly provide tribunals with the power to summarily dismiss unmeritorious claims early in an arbitration. While the ICC Rules do not include summary dismissal provisions, under Article 22 the tribunal is required to make every effort to conduct the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner.
4 Notably, the ICC has introduced a policy whereby arbitrators’ fees can be reduced by up to 20% for unjustified delays to an award. Arbitrators’ fees can also be increased above the standard scale if the tribunal has been exceptionally efficient and conducted the case with "unusual dispatch."
5 The AI arbitrator tool was introduced by the American Arbitration Association – International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) in 2025.}