Ukraine: Quicker Justice In International Arbitration: Is It Possible

Arbitration has now firmly es­tablished its position as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism in international business. The common view is that arbitration is much more convenient as compared to litigation given that it provides significant flexibility of the proceeding, en­sures confidentiality and establishes a uni­fied regime for the recognition and enforce­ment of arbitral awards. Leaving aside other advantages of arbitration, and there are in­deed many of them, the parties are increas­ingly concerned with the cost and length of arbitration proceedings.

These concerns of the parties, and ac­cordingly of the arbitration community, resulted in amendments being introduced recently to various arbitration rules with a view to accommodating the demands and expectations of users.

In general, there are two ways in which arbitration institutions respond to demands for more time- and cost-efficient arbitration proceedings:

  • by establishing new procedural tools for streamlining the arbitration proceed­ings, such as rules for expedited forma­tion of the arbitral tribunal, time frames for drafting and rendering the final arbitral award, and
  • through establishing separate special types of proceedings, so-called expedited proceedings, which differ from the tradi­tional proceedings and usually introduce tighter time schedules and, in some cases, lower arbitration and administrative costs.

Accordingly, depending on the approach taken by each arbitration institution, some arbitration rules may propose only certain additional provisions which provide for the improved efficiency of the procedure (e.g. the LCIA Arbitration Rules provide the expedited procedure only for the formation of the arbitral tribunal and appointment of a replacement arbitrator) and some arbitra­tion rules include a special set of expedited provisions or even separate rules of expe­dited procedures (e.g. the ICC Arbitration Rules and the SCC Rules for Expedited Ar­bitrations).

Purpose and application of the Expedited Rules

Specific rules for expedited arbitration proceedings may be found in such arbitra­tion rules as the 2017 SCC Rules for Expe­dited Arbitrations (SCC Rules), the 2017 ICC Arbitration Rules (ICC Rules), the 2016 SIAC Arbitration Rules (Singapore Rules), the 2013 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules (Hong Kong Rules), the 2013 Rules of Arbitration and Conciliation of VIAC (Vienna Rules), the 2012 Swiss Rules of International Arbitration (Swiss Rules) and others.

Just recently, the International Com­mercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry made public the new version of its Arbitration Rules coming into force as of 1 January 2018 (Rules of ICAC at the UCCI). These Rules also contain specific provisions on expedit­ed arbitration proceedings.

The idea behind such expedited rules is to provide for the most efficient procedure for low-value claims or less complex claims. This idea is based on the reasonable expec­tation that high-value claims are more likely to be complex and involve voluminous evi­dentiary materials. Accordingly, almost all of the mentioned arbitration rules, except for the Rules of ICAC at the UCCI, SCC Rules and the Vienna Rules, link the application of the expedited rules to the value of the claim and provide that such expedited rules shall apply, among other things, if the amount in dispute does not exceed:

  • USD 2 million according to the ICC Rules;
  • SGD 6 million (app. USD 4.47 million), according to the Singapore Rules;
  • CHF 1 million (app. USD 1.055 mil­lion) according to the Swiss Rules;
  • HKD 25 million (app. 3.2 million) ac­cording to the Hong Kong Rules.

But the expectation that low-value claims are less complex is not always true. There may be many cases where the amount in dispute would be USD 1 million or less but the dispute behind this amount would involve complex issues of application of for­eign law, calculation of damages, inspection of the quality of goods, etc. Accordingly, the parties should normally expressly agree to the expedited proceedings. Moreover, opt-in, notwithstanding the value of the claim, is possible under all the mentioned arbitra­tion rules.

Contrary to the above general approach, the ICC Rules and the Swiss Rules provide for the automatic application of the relevant expedited arbitration rules if the value of a claim does not exceed USD 2 million and CHF 1 million, respectively. Such automatic application of the expedited rules in the ICC Rules and the Swiss Rules is, however, bal­ anced by the right of the relevant arbitration institution to decide on the application of the general procedure in view of the case's complexity. It should also be noted that un­like the ICC Rules, the Swiss Rules do now allow for opting out of the expedited proce­dure where the established threshold of the claim value is not exceeded.

Since the decision of the arbitration in­stitution on application of the general rules instead of the expedited in case of the ICC Rules and Swiss Rules may not always coin­cide with the position of a party or parties to the dispute or their strategical needs, this should be taken into account by the parties when choosing to include a reference to the ICC Rules or the Swiss Rules in an arbitra­tion agreement.

The SCC provides an alternative ap­proach in suggesting several different model clauses to the parties. The parties could ei­ther choose standard (non-expedited) SCC Rules or expedited SCC Rules, or even a combined clause with expedited SCC Rules as a first choice (in this case the SCC will retain a discretion taking into account the complexity of the case, the amount in dis­pute and other circumstances so as to apply standard SCC Rules) or a value-based com­bined clause (the application of expedited SCC Rules and choice between a sole arbi­trator or three arbitrators will depend on the amount in dispute).

Principal features of the expedited arbitration rules

Turning to the mechanisms for making the arbitration proceedings more efficient, expedited arbitration rules propose the fol­lowing principal measures:

  • combining in one procedural step of filing a Request for Arbitration and a State­ment of Claim and, respectively, a Reply to the Request for Arbitration and a Statement of Defense and/or limitation of the number of the parties' written submissions;
  • introduction of tighter deadlines for written submissions from the parties and other procedural steps, including for draft­ing and rendering the final arbitral award;
  • giving preference to the arbitration with a sole arbitrator instead of the panel of three arbitrators, and
  • limiting hearings (usually at the re­quest of the parties).

Combination of written submissions, their limited number, length and scope

Expedited arbitration rules tend to limit the number of written submissions from the parties, as well as address unnecessary de­lays between filing of a Request for Arbitra­tion and a Statement of Claim and further submissions by the parties.

For example, in practice, there are cases where more than one year passes between the filing of a Request for Arbitration with little particulars of the claim and a State­ment of Claim containing the full case of a claimant. Leaving aside cases when this happens due to the agreement of the parties or due to the progress of settlement talks, such a situation is not entirely efficient.

To overcome this problem, the SCC Rules implemented the new rule according to which a claimant's Request for Arbitra­tion constitutes a claimant's Statement of Claim and, respectively, a respondent's Re­ply to the Request for Arbitration consti­tutes a respondent's Statement of Defence. This approach will significantly shorten the period between the commencement of pro­ceedings and receipt of the parties' written submissions by the arbitral tribunal. Under the SCC Rules, it is expected that the parties will further make only one additional round of written submissions.

The Rules of the ICAC, in principle, also follow this approach and provide that in addition to a Statement of Claim and a Statement of Defense, a further round of submissions is possible if the circumstances so require.

The Vienna Rules, the Swiss Rules, and the Hong Kong Rules establish a slightly different approach, which will also help to save time in the course of the proceedings. According to this approach, the parties in principal are expected to submit in addition to their Request for Arbitration and Answer only one additional round of written sub­missions, while according to the ICC Rules, the arbitral tribunal is also entitled to es­tablish further limitations on the length and scope of such written submissions.

Tighter Deadlines

So as to achieve greater effect in mak­ing the arbitration fast and efficient, the ex­pedited rules also tend to cut deadlines for different procedural steps in the arbitration proceedings. This effect is mainly achieved through establishing general time limits for rendering a final award in the course of the proceedings. The usual approach is to set six months for rendering the final award from the date the case is referred to the arbitral tribunal (the Vienna Rules, the Swiss Rules, the Hong Kong Rules), or from the date of constitution of the arbitral tribunal (the Singapore Rules), or from the date of the management conference (the ICC Rules). The SCC Rules establish an even shorter deadline of three months from the date the case was referred to the arbitrator. The Rules of ICAC, in contrast, set a time limit for rendering a final award within twenty days of the hearing.

In addition, the expedited rules also es­tablish a general requirement to the arbitra­tors and parties to the dispute to act in an efficient and expeditious manner.

Naturally, if the circumstances so re­quire, the respective deadlines could be rea­sonably extended. However, the existence of an overarching time limit for the rendering of the final award and cutting off of other procedural deadlines in reality contribute greatly to the efficiency of the arbitration proceedings.

Sole arbitrator vs. three arbitrators

All expedited arbitration rules give pref­erence to the sole arbitrator instead of the panel of three arbitrators. From the practical perspective, involvement of one arbitrator instead of three arbitrators is always a better option when the efficiency of the arbitration proceedings is a key goal. A sole arbitrator may be appointed substantially quicker and will definitely be cheaper for the parties.

Although a sole arbitrator will contrib­ute to the efficiency of the expedited proce­dure, most of the expedited arbitration rules still give preference to the agreement of the parties. In order words, it the parties insist on the panel of three arbitrators, they will be entitled to have a panel of three arbitrators to resolve their dispute.

This approach is not maintained main­tained, for example, in the ICC Rules, which quite unusually provide that a sole arbitra­tor may be appointed in all cases notwith­standing any contrary provision in the arbi­tration agreement.

Hearing

The general approach to the hearing in expedited procedures is to avoid it to the extent possible with due regard to the com­plexity of the case, witnesses and experts involved and other relevant considerations. The position of the parties on whether there is a need for the hearing is crucial and will have a significant impact on the decision of the arbitral tribunal on holding the hearing.

Do expedited proceedings save costs?

Turning to the issue of costs, the main question is whether all the above features of the expedited arbitration rules actually result in cost savings.

Among all the expedited arbitration rules considered in this article only the SCC Rules and the ICC Rules specifically provide for reduced fees in case of expe­dited arbitration proceedings.

The extent of cost savings may be seen from the cost comparison chart above cre­ated with the use of the official fee calcu­lators of the ICC and the SCC and based on the assumption that the amount in dis­pute will be USD/EUR 1.5 million and the dispute will be resolved by either a sole arbitrator or three arbitrators.

Since both SCC Rules and ICC Rules allow opting in their expedited rules not­withstanding the amount of the claim, expedited proceedings could potentially be used for the purpose of saving costs. This option, however, should be carefully considered against the background of the dispute and its complexity.

However, as seen from the cost com­parison chart, an even more significant cost saving option is for the parties to agree to a sole arbitrator instead of three arbitrators using standard (non-expedit­ed) arbitration rules. From the practical perspective, the best time to agree to a sole arbitrator is when the relevant con­tract with an arbitration clause is being negotiated. Once the dispute arises, the parties will most likely not be cooperative to any amendments to the number of ar­bitrators.

Practical thoughts

The expedited arbitration rules are structured in such a way as to allow arbitra­tion proceedings to be concluded swiftly. However, in a complex dispute with volu­minous factual background, numerous wit­nesses and experts, any additional pressure on the timetable may, in fact, obstruct the legal counsels from proper presentation of a case of their client rather than provide any real advantages.

Due to these considerations, the par­ties should be quite careful in agreeing to the application of expedited arbitration rules, particularly so in cases where ac­cording to the chosen arbitration rules the expedited procedures apply by default if the amount in dispute does not exceed a certain threshold.

At the same time, if on the basis of the relevant contract it is clear that the dis­putes which are likely to arise from such a contract will not be complex from the point of law and facts, it might well be a good op­tion to agree to expedited arbitration from the beginning.

And if cost cutting is the primary con­cern, the parties should be aware that opt­ing for arbitration under standard (non-expedited) arbitration rules with a sole arbitrator instead of a panel with three arbitrators, will often provide much more significant cost savings compared to opting for expedited arbitration rules.

Originally published in The Ukrainian Journal of Business Law, October 2017

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
Sayenko Kharenko
Frishberg & Partners
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Sayenko Kharenko
Frishberg & Partners
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must 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