Tom Price
Partner
Head of the CIS and CEE desk
Article
The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) has released a report on the costs and duration of arbitrations conducted under its rules since 2013. We look at some of the headline points and trends.
In recent years, there has been much talk of the cost and duration of arbitral proceedings, with parties keen to keep both under control and to understand how long proceedings are likely to take and how much they are likely to cost. It is not just the fees of the lawyers involved; parties have also found it difficult accurately to compare the fees of the institutions and the cost of the arbitrators appointed under the institutions' rules since some (e.g. ICC) have a fee scale based on the sum in dispute, and others (e.g. LCIA) allow arbitrators to charge hourly rates.
In 2015, partly because of the arbitrators' hourly rates charging structure (which has a cap of £450 per hour), the LCIA was the first arbitral institution to provide actual costs and duration figures for arbitrations under its rules, in order to give parties some visibility on these matters. Cost and duration has since become something of a battleground between institutions vying for parties' business. Since LCIA's 2015 report, a number of other institutions have also released actual costs and duration figures for the arbitrations they administer, to supplement the fee scales and calculators published on their websites.
In this latest report, the LCIA updates and expands the picture in its 2015 report by adding data from 2016. The updated report looks at 224 LCIA cases which reached a final award in the period 2013 - 2016, and the LCIA says this larger dataset has allowed more detailed analysis of the costs and duration of its arbitrations. Of course, these statistics do not include the fees charged by the lawyers representing the parties, the fees of experts or the hiring of venues.
In calculating the cost and duration figures, LCIA has used median rather than mean to avoid outliers (e.g. particularly long proceedings) skewing the picture.
LCIA claims that at present the actual cost and duration figures published by other institutions are not directly comparable because of a lack of transparency over the methodology employed. In this updated report, LCIA has engaged third party consultants to update its statistics, and it invites other institutions to use consultants as a neutral conduit to enable direct comparison of actual costs. At present though, this report looks at the actual costs and duration of LCIA arbitrations and compares these to the estimated costs and duration of those proceedings at other institutions, using those institutions' own costs schedules or calculators. On that basis, LCIA claims:
The LCIA is keen to demonstrate that its actual costs are less expensive than the estimated costs of competing institutions at disputes of all values, and that its own administrative costs in particular are very competitive.
Its figures for the time to issue an award and for the speed of resolution of smaller value disputes appear impressive, and LCIA seems to imply that there is therefore no value in it introducing expedited procedures like those of its competitors, saying "given the extent to which duration is attributable to the parties, it is not clear how realistic or indeed desirable it is to seek a further reduction in duration".
Whilst the report makes interesting reading and will give parties some indication of at least part of the costs and the duration of proceedings under LCIA Rules, those are of course only one factor in choosing an arbitral institution. Moreover, the fees of the arbitrators and the costs of the institutions are generally only a small part of the overall cost of the arbitral process. If you are considering arbitration for current or future disputes, our arbitration practitioners can assist in advising on appropriate dispute resolution provisions and arbitral institutions.
CECI NE CONSTITUE PAS UN AVIS JURIDIQUE. L'information qui est présentée dans le site Web sous quelque forme que ce soit est fournie à titre informatif uniquement. Elle ne constitue pas un avis juridique et ne devrait pas être interprétée comme tel. Aucun utilisateur ne devrait prendre ou négliger de prendre des décisions en se fiant uniquement à ces renseignements, ni ignorer les conseils juridiques d'un professionnel ou tarder à consulter un professionnel sur la base de ce qu'il a lu dans ce site Web. Les professionnels de Gowling WLG seront heureux de discuter avec l'utilisateur des différentes options possibles concernant certaines questions juridiques précises.