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

ASA Zurich announces third annual forum on crypto and DAO arbitration

The Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA) Local Group Zurich has announced its third annual Crypto Arbitration Forum, scheduled for 20 May 2025 at Lenz & Staehelin's Zurich offices. The event will examine arbitration mechanisms for blockchain and decentralised autonomous organisation (DAO) disputes, featuring a keynote by Bianca Kremer followed by an expert panel discussion. The forum aims to address evolving dispute resolution requirements in cryptocurrency and blockchain contexts, with particular focus on legal, procedural and technological challenges.

Singapore High Court orders partial setting aside of award of damages made in excess of scope of submission to arbitration (India Glycols Ltd and others v Texan Minerals and Chemicals LLC)

Arbitration analysis: This case involved a successful partial setting aside of an arbitral Award of damages pursuant to Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (‘Model Law’) on grounds that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. In this case, the Singapore High Court partially set aside a part of the Award imposing liability for damages for breach of contract on two of the three Respondents, finding that the issue of the two Respondents’ breach of contract and liability for the same never arose in the arbitration nor was it within the scope of the submission to arbitration. This case provides useful guidance as to how a court approaches a challenge to an award made in excess of a tribunal’s jurisdiction. Written by Magdalene Ong, partner at WongPartnership LLP.

Hong Kong—security for costs imposed on plaintiffs in application to set aside arbitral award (Y S v GI GG)

Arbitration analysis: This decision affirms well-established legal principles on the grant of security for costs in the context of an application to set aside an arbitral award under section 81(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (AO). The plaintiffs argue that the award should be set aside as it acknowledges a Set-Off Mechanism, the effect of which the plaintiffs contend conflicts with Hong Kong public policy. The Set-Off Mechanism in this case, in essence, obliged the 1st plaintiff to waive the purchase price for shares in the amount outstanding to the 1st defendant, should the 2nd defendant fail to pay the 1st defendant any amount due under a promissory note. The 1st defendant applied for security of costs to be furnished by the plaintiffs in the set aside proceedings. Mrs Justice Mimmie Chan considered that the set aside application had little prospect of success and held that it would be just to exercise discretion to order the plaintiffs to provide security for costs. The case demonstrates the Hong Kong Courts’ consistently supportive stance towards arbitration and arbitral awards, in that the ordinary principles to security of costs will not be departed from to make easier any challenge to an arbitral award. Written by Paul Starr, partner at King & Wood Mallesons; Felicity Ng, senior associate at King & Wood Mallesons; Sian Knight, professional support lawyer at King & Wood Mallesons.

Sanctions ordered for noncompliance with awards in telecommunications row

Mealey’s: A New York federal judge on 22 April 2025 granted a motion for civil contempt sanctions against the majority shareholders of a Latin American telecommunications company for their ongoing failure to comply with five partial awards issued against them in an ongoing arbitration with the company’s minority shareholders.