Series
Blogs
ICC takes a deep dive into its expedited procedures
ICC takes a deep dive into its expedited procedures
19 February 2026
Series
Blogs
19 February 2026
A Working Group of the International Chamber of Commerce’s (“ICC”) Commission on Arbitration and ADR recently released a report (the “Report”) analysing the operation of the Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”) in the ICC Arbitration Rules since their introduction in 2017. This Report offers some key EPP learning points for parties and tribunals and, in this post, we examine some of its highlights.
Introduced by a 2017 revision of the ICC Arbitration Rules, and modified in 2021, EPP applies by default to ICC arbitrations where the arbitration agreement (i) has been signed on or after 1 March 2017; and (ii) does not exceed USD $2 million, or USD $3 million where the arbitration agreement was signed after 1 January 2021. Parties may also opt-in to EPP in cases where it would otherwise not apply and opt-out in cases where it would.
Broadly speaking, EPP aims to streamline procedure and timelines for lower value, less complex disputes, leading to quicker and cheaper outcomes for parties.
However, the Report states that, despite its success, EPP may remain unfamiliar to some at the same time. Against that background, the Report seeks to examine current practice, identify challenges and provide recommendations when using EPP, including drawing from statistics captured from the 865 ICC proceedings which applied EPP in the period of 2017-2024. Broadly speaking, the Report looks at these issues through the lens of various features of EPP arbitrations. A brief summary follows.
The Report offers some observations regarding the ability of parties to opt-in or opt-out, and the application of EPP to more complex disputes. It records that, through 2017-2024, 16 per cent of EPP cases (i.e. 141 of 865) were a result of party choice to opt-in, whereas in 3.6 per cent of cases (i.e. 31 of 865), parties exercised the option to opt-out of the provisions. The Report also offers some observations regarding the reasons why parties may opt-out (along with timing considerations when making this decision during proceedings) or choose not to opt-in; including concerns regarding the complexity of a matter. However, the Report notes that EPP has been successfully used for complex disputes, with 5.5 per cent of EPP cases in 2017-2024 involving opt-in cases above the default value threshold, and proactive conduct was particularly key to managing such arbitrations.
Under EPP, as a default position, a sole arbitrator may be appointed by the ICC (irrespective of any contrary provision in the arbitration agreement). The Report places emphasis on how this has been important to EPP in, for example, not only reducing costs but reducing the scope for challenges. The Report also flags how, in cases where the arbitration agreement provides for a three-arbitrator panel, the ICC Court does not proceed automatically with the default rule but assesses applicable law(s) before proceeding. In total, there were 61 EPP cases in 2017-2024 where the ICC used a sole arbitrator despite the arbitration agreement providing for three.
The Report also looks at how tribunals might exercise their wide procedural discretions to obtain successful outputs in EPP. For example, as to new claims, the Report notes that the introduction of these can have an impact on rendering an EPP award within the six-month time limit (starting from the date of the first case management conference) and illustrates considerations tribunals may have regard to when determining whether to allow new claims.
As to document production, the Report notes that its usage was relatively infrequent, with 79 per cent of the 461 EPP cases which rendered a final award not using document production. However, the Report does provide guidance for tailoring the process if it is required, including running production in parallel with the submissions stage.
In relation to hearings, the Report states that 54.4 per cent (251) of those 461 EPP cases involved hearings, with the remainder decided on the documents. The Report also provides some of the factors that a tribunal should consider when determining whether a hearing is necessary in an EPP arbitration and, where it is, the issues relevant to assist with its prompt organisation, such as the use of remote attendance and organised scheduling.
The Report notes that the six-month EPP time limit for rendering an award (see above) has been largely met with success, with 63 per cent of EPP final awards meeting the deadline between 2017-2024. In that context, the Report discusses how the tribunal can most efficiently produce awards containing appropriate reasoning within the timeframe along with the need to maintain relevant considerations, such as the quality and the rendering of an enforceable award [115].
Other issues considered by the Report include the treatment of costs and fees, and interim measures. [118-143]
The Report provides a useful overview of EPP as a mechanism for expediting ICC arbitration proceedings and gives helpful insight into the practical application of EPP and considerations for its future use. The Report is also accompanied by a summary fact sheet and also a separate EPP Toolkit for Arbitrators which gives more granular guidance to tribunals in managing the issues discussed in the Report.
Click here for the Report and the accompanying Factsheet and Toolkit.
Blog post by Niara Lee, Associate, International Arbitration Group.