Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Because you wait for one and three come along at once!
In December 2015 I discussed the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) data on the costs and duration of arbitrations and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Commission report on Decisions on Costs in International Arbitration. From that data, and on an admittedly unscientific basis, I concluded that these figures would tend to show that parties to LCIA arbitration will pay less in administration
fees than at other comparable institutions (ICC, SIAC and HKIAC) and, on the whole, over 70% of successful parties (which a claiming party will generally be in some or all respects) will recover some or all of their costs.
I noted that without comparable data from other institutions I could not draw any concrete comparisons from this data, but, applauded the LCIA's move as the release of this information will have done the LCIA no harm in terms of being a claiming party's
institution of choice.
Now, in February 2016, the SCC has released its own costs data on the apportionment of costs. Unlike the LCIA report, the SCC
report does not give data about the costs of SCC arbitrations. Instead, it focuses on the costs of arbitration, and their relationship to the costs for legal representation, duration of disputes and apportionment of costs of arbitration and
costs for legal representation. Some of the report's key findings are:
In cases with sole arbitrator, a median percentage of 65% of the total costs paid by the parties corresponded to costs for legal representation; a median of 35% was paid for the costs of the arbitration. In cases with three arbitrators, a median percentage
of 81% was paid for costs for legal representation, 19% devoted to the costs of the arbitration. Note however that 78% of the 148 cases reviewed were conducted by a sole arbitrator so only a small number of three member arbitrations were considered
The median duration of disputes decide by sole arbitrators is 10.3 months compared to 15.8 months for those decided by three arbitrators. For all cases, the median was 13.5 months
Note that the SCC rules (unlike some other institutions including the LCIA (art 28) do not contain any presumption in favour of the loser-pays approach to costs
The report also considered what the tribunal took into account in adjusting the costs recovered by the (relative) winner:
As the institutions have not collaborated in their reports and have therefore taken different approaches and focused on different issues it is difficult to draw any real conclusions. No-one has yet challenged the LCIA's data on costs and its findings
versus the costs of the ICC, HKIAC and SIAC which, it may be argued, shows that the data may be largely reliable.
So far as duration is concerned, the LCIA report shows that a mediation arbitration under a sole arbitrator took 15 months (10.3 months under SCC) and 19 months for a three-person tribunal (15.8 months for the SCC). The SCC appears to be slightly
quicker but on small samples of cases and without any further reference to the details of the cases in question these differences are not significant.
The SCC's findings on how the tribunal adjusted costs reflects the ICC's findings in that 'almost all awards rendered under the 2012 ICC Rules took into account whether the parties had conducted the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner'
and 'whether the parties contributed equally to any unnecessary lengthening and complication of the arbitration and associated increased cost and/or whether their pursuit of the arbitration was in good faith due to a genuine disagreement between them'
(see the list of ten factors commonly taken into account by tribunals at page 21 of the ICC report). The way in which the tribunals apportioned costs also rang true as between the SCC and ICC.
While the information released by each of the institutions is helpful to see 'behind the curtain', and gives some comfort that tribunals are behaving in broadly the same way regardless of the applicable institutional rules (which, given that many
arbitrators will appear under a variety of rules, is not surprising) they do not give any ground on which to compare or even 'pick' an institution. This is however not a criticism, an institution should be chosen for reasons other than how a tribunal
will order costs.
Parties need to consider the nuances of the rules including the mechanism for the appointment of the tribunal, the availability of emergency measures, the availability of an appeal on a point of law, the tribunal’s administrative process, reputation
and effectiveness (to name but a few). So while from the position of a self-confessed arbitration-geek the statistics are interesting and food for thought, unless the institutions worked together to provide real comparative data they will continue
to be of high interest but limited use.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234