Worldwide: Summary Procedures In International Arbitration - Pros And Cons

Last Updated: 19 April 2017
Article by Liz Tout and James Langley

Traditionally, arbitration has been hailed by some as a faster, cheaper, and therefore preferable method of dispute resolution than, for example, court litigation. However, in matters where less is at stake, costs can often become disproportionate.

Recognising this, some arbitration institutions have recently introduced summary procedures in international arbitration. This article explores the procedures available, which institutions have grasped the nettle, and what the pros and potential cons are in practical terms.

What it is, and what it is not

A summary procedure in international arbitration essentially allows both claimant and respondent the opportunity to obtain a quick and early determination on the merits, without going through the entire arbitral process of submitting full evidence and arguments.

To be clear, summary procedure should not be confused with the following related concepts, where there may be some areas of practical overlap:

  1. Expedited procedure – this is a different mechanism that effectively compresses the full arbitral process, or an agreed modified version thereof. 
  2. "Documents only" proceeding – sometimes as part of an expedited procedure or generally, and depending on the nature of the dispute, parties may agree to a "documents only" proceeding where the issues are decided solely by way of documents and written submissions without an oral hearing.
  3. Bifurcation – this involves parties choosing to determine certain parts of a case first, with the agreement that a decision one way may dispose of the case as a whole. The classic example is a bifurcation of liability and quantum.

It is of course also possible to get a case summarily dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, but that is not the focus of the present article. The type of summary dismissal that we are concerned with here is essentially the early substantive dismissal of claims or defences on the merits (or rather lack thereof), very much like the summary judgment and striking out procedures in common law court litigation. The scope of such procedure is limited and is only really appropriate where a claim or defence is, in broad terms, clearly unmeritorious, unsustainable or abusive.

Latest developments

There has been ongoing debate for some time about whether arbitral tribunals already have the implicit powers to issue summary awards under existing broadly drafted statutory provisions and rules which expressly permit tribunals wide discretion over how arbitral procedures are carried out.

Rightly or wrongly, most tribunals take the conservative view that they do not have the power to do so. This is in essence because of the absence of an explicit basis to issue summary awards, and, in the case of arbitrations conducted under English law, the cornerstone obligation enshrined in statutory terms in s.33 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to allow each party "a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent". Failure on the part of the tribunal to discharge this duty sufficiently may form the basis of a challenge to the tribunal's award (including at enforcement). 

A few major arbitral institutions have since taken the bull by the horns to expressly provide for (or, in some people's views, reinforce) an arbitral tribunal's power to issue summary awards. We will highlight some details of the key recent developments below.

Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)

The first major institution to spearhead an express summary procedure in international arbitration was the SIAC. It did so in the 6th edition of its rules (SIAC Rules), which came into force on 1 August 2016.

Under Rule 29.1a, any party may apply for the early dismissal of a claim or defence on the basis that it is "manifestly without legal merit". Upon receiving the application, the tribunal has the discretion to decide whether to allow it to proceed. This gate-keeping function helps strike the balance between flexibility (as there is no stipulated deadline within which an application must be made) and the need to prevent any potential abuse of process (for example, if a party tries to engineer a vacation of the evidentiary hearing dates under the guise of an eleventh hour application for summary dismissal).

If the tribunal gives the green light for the application to proceed, it is then expressly required under Rule 29.3 to decide the application "after giving the parties the opportunity to be heard". Pursuant to Rule 29.4, a reasoned order or award must be made swiftly within 60 days of the date on which the application was filed unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Registrar extends the time.

Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC)

The SCC's latest revised arbitration rules (SCC Rules), which came into force on 1 January 2017, also include an express summary procedure under Article 39.

The grounds for an application under Article 39 are fairly broad and encompass considerations of both factual and legal issues – it states that a request for summary procedure "may concern issues of jurisdiction, admissibility or the merits" and "may include, for example, an assertion that: (i) an allegation of fact or law material to the outcome of the case is manifestly unsustainable; (ii) even if the facts alleged by the other party are assumed to be true, no award could be rendered in favour of that party under the applicable law; or (iii) any issue of fact or law material to the outcome of the case is, for any other reason, suitable to determination by way of summary procedure".

Unlike Rule 29 of the SIAC Rules, Article 39 of the SCC Rules does not grant the tribunal the discretion to decide whether to even hear such an application. However, it does require the tribunal to consider, amongst other things, the extent to which the summary procedure contributes to a more efficient and expeditious resolution of the dispute, when determining the application.

As with the SIAC Rules, the SCC Rules also expressly require the tribunal to give "each party an equal and reasonable opportunity to present its case" under Article 39(6). The SCC Rules, however, do not specify a deadline by which the tribunal must issue an order or award on the summary application, but Article 39(6) requires the tribunal to do so "in an efficient and expeditious manner having regard to the circumstances of the case".

Pros and potential cons

The benefits of summary procedure in international arbitration are immediately obvious. By providing an avenue for unmeritorious proceedings to be disposed of at an early stage, it represents significant costs savings to parties who would otherwise have to pump in precious time and resources pursuing what are essentially slam-dunk claims, or defending baseless claims. In the context of the SIAC Rules, a successful summary application will, absent exceptional circumstances, throw out an unmeritorious claim or defence within two months of the application being filed. Compare this to the latest available statistics ¬– full SIAC cases take on average about 13.8 months1, while full cases filed with the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) take on average about 20 months2.

Of course, there is a flipside to this. A party may potentially file a clearly unmeritorious application for summary procedure and end up adding another layer of proceedings to the entire arbitration. This is where costs consequences, the tribunal's gate-keeping discretion and the imposition of strict timelines for determination such as those provided in the SIAC Rules will be very useful to control and manage any knock-on impact on the rest of the arbitration.

Another potential drawback is the uncertainty surrounding the enforcement of a summary award if the losing party argues it was not given the opportunity to properly present its case. The intuitive argument dismissing such concerns would be that parties had agreed (whether directly or indirectly through the arbitration agreement referring to the relevant rules as may be amended from time to time) to a set of arbitral rules that expressly permit summary procedure on the application of either party. So the losing party really cannot have its proverbial cake and eat it too.

An additional argument on principle is that the heart of the issue is ultimately really "whether the procedure adopted by the Tribunal was within the scope of its powers, and was otherwise fair", as was noted by the English High Court in Travis Coal Restructured Holdings LLC v. Essar Global Fund Limited [2014] EWHC 2510 (Comm). In this regard, as alluded to earlier, the SIAC and the SCC have not only made such powers express; they have also made it expressly clear that the tribunal must in the exercise of such powers give fair opportunity for the parties to present their cases. It is also useful as a matter of precedent that the English High Court in Travis Coal had specifically rejected the argument that a summary judgment process by arbitrators necessarily amounts to a denial of due process.

Hence, it appears that unless there is clear evidence of something more (or less) done by the tribunal which offends the requirements of natural justice, concerns about enforcement of summary arbitral awards, in pro-arbitration England at least, are likely to be overstated. However, if a party foresees having to enforce an arbitral award in less arbitration-friendly jurisdictions, it would certainly be prudent to obtain local law advice.

What's next?

It will not at all be surprising if more arbitration institutions, in particular the other dominant international players such as the LCIA and the International Chamber of Commerce, start to follow in the footsteps of the SIAC and the SCC. Such engagement, in turn, may have practical significance for banks and financial institutions in particular. These entities have traditionally engaged in litigation, rather than arbitration, because of the availability of summary procedures in litigation. With the recent developments and likely trends as described above, the balance for such entities could start tilting towards arbitration.  

Finally, these recent developments should go some way towards enhancing arbitration as a faster, cheaper and preferable method of dispute resolution.

Footnotes

1 http://www.siac.org.sg/69-siac-news/499-siac-releases-costs-and-duration-study 

2 http://www.lcia.org/News/lcia-releases-costs-and-duration-data.aspx 

Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Fenwick Elliott LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Fenwick Elliott LLP
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions