Costs in international arbitration

This Practice Note discusses the types of costs that can be incurred in international arbitration proceedings and considers practical steps that can be taken to assist with the recovery of costs. It covers the costs incurred in the arbitration (legal fees and disbursements and costs of the arbitration, including the tribunal’s fees), allocation and recoverability of costs and the award on costs. It also covers security for costs and links out to further content on this subject.

See Practice Note: Costs in international arbitration.

Fees of the arbitral institutions

This Practice Note sets out the fees incurred in arbitration under key institutional rules including International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), Singapore international Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), China International Economic Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), American Arbitration Association (AAA), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) and Swiss Arbitration Centre (SAC). This Practice Note also covers links to cost calculators provided by the various institutions to estimate the cost of arbitral proceedings under their Rules.

See Practice Note:

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

Business interruption insurance—Court of Appeal rules on composite policies and furlough deductions (Bath Racecourse v Liberty Mutual)

Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal in Bath Racecourse Company Ltd and others v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE and others upheld the Commercial Court’s interpretation of composite business interruption policies, confirming that each insured benefits from a separate indemnity limit. It also confirmed that furlough payments under the CJRS must be deducted as savings. This decision has wide implications for coronavirus (COVID-19) BI claims, and permission has been granted to the Supreme Court (UKSC/2025/0068) on the furlough deduction issue, which may impact the outcome of thousands of claims. Written by Tatiana Minaeva, independent counsel and Arbitrator.

USA—Russia says it never agreed to arbitrate with Ukrainian utility

Law360: Russia has asked the DC Circuit to overturn a decision ordering it to face litigation by a Ukrainian utility to enforce a nearly US$219m arbitral award the company won after its Crimean assets were seized, saying it never agreed to arbitrate with the company.

The English Court of Appeal affirms the correct approach to treaty interpretation under customary international law (Republic of Korea v Elliott Associates)

Arbitration analysis: This appeal concerns the correct interpretation of Chapter 11 of the free trade agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America (the ‘Treaty’). In April 2018, Elliott Associates, LP (‘Elliott’) commenced arbitration proceedings, alleging that the Republic of Korea (‘Korea’) had breached specific provisions of Chapter 11 of the Treaty. Korea objected to the tribunal’s jurisdiction, arguing that the claim fell outside the scope of Chapter 11, including its dispute resolution provisions. However, in June 2023, the tribunal upheld Elliott’s claims and awarded damages against Korea. In response, Korea applied to the High Court in July 2023 seeking to set aside the arbitral award under section 67 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The application was dismissed by Justice Foxton of the Commercial Court in August 2024, resulting in the present appeal. In overturning the High Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal (COA) clarified the correct approach to interpreting treaties. It affirmed that interpretation must align with the principles established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which reflect customary international law. Drawing from Article 31 and 32 of the VCLT, the COA emphasised that treaty terms must be construed by reference to their ordinary meaning, in context, and in light of the object and purpose of the treaty without drawing from English authorities as to whether particular issues ‘will be jurisdictional for section 67 purposes’. The COA concluded that, on a proper interpretation, Section A of the Treaty imposes specific jurisdictional requirements that must be satisfied, for an offer to arbitrate under Section B of Chapter 11 to arise. Accordingly, the High Court was found to have erred in holding otherwise. Written by Dr Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and Naa Amorkor Amarteifio, partner at AB & David Africa, Ghana.

Enforcing the exclusivity of the supervisory jurisdiction of an arbitration (Star Hydro Power Ltd v National Transmission and Despatch Company Ltd)

Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal granted an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in Pakistan intended to undermine an award in a London seated arbitration. The court emphasised the exclusivity of the supervisory jurisdiction of an arbitration for the purposes of a challenge to an award, noting that a ‘challenge’ to an award under the New York Convention is a shield against an application for recognition and enforcement of the award, not a sword with which the award may be cut down. Written by Jennifer Haywood, barrister, arbitrator and mediator at Serle Court.