Aside from interim relief and emergency arbitration (discussed in part 1 of this blog post), in some circumstances parties may require a final decision on an urgent and expedited basis.
If parties require a final award within a short time, they may consider pursuing an expedited proceeding. Expedited proceedings are designed to resolve disputes more quickly and cost-efficiently than traditional arbitration. The final award will sometimes be handed down within months of the commencement of the arbitration. For example, the ICC Rules require the final award in expedited proceedings to be delivered within six months from the date of the case management conference (Appendix VI, Art. 4(1) ICC Rules) while the DIS Rules require the final award in such proceedings to be delivered within six months after conclusion of the case management conference (Annex 4, Article 1 DIS Rules). It should be noted that an expedited proceeding does not necessarily require an explicit agreement. Under the ICC Rules, for example, for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 March 2017, in the absence of an opt-out by the parties, the rules on expedited proceedings are automatically applicable for amounts in dispute that do not exceed USD 3 million (USD 2 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 March 2017 and before 1 January 2021).
Expedited proceedings generally involve a streamlined arbitration process. Features of an expedited arbitration may include the appointment of a sole arbitrator, condensed deadlines for the delivery of evidence and submissions, and simplifications of the procedure such as limiting the number and length of party submissions or dispensing the oral hearing (e.g., Annex 4, Articles 3 and 4 DIS Rules and Appendix VI, Art. 2(2) ICC Rules).
Although a streamlined process may be advantageous in certain circumstances, it also entails risks. Therefore, parties agreeing to arbitration clauses should carefully consider whether and to which extent institutional rules providing for expedited procedures are appropriate and whether the institutional rules the parties intend to agree on require parties to opt-in or opt-out of such procedure.
Ultimately, the question of interim relief and speed of the arbitral proceeding is an important strategic consideration which parties should bear in mind from the outset, including when drafting the arbitration clause and before commencing arbitration proceedings. In general, an accelerated procedure may be appropriate if the dispute has a relatively low-value, or perhaps if the case can be handled on a documents-only basis. Issues may arise where the parties agree to expedited procedures in the arbitration agreement but the dispute ultimately turns out to be more economically significant or complex than originally assumed. Therefore, including a mechanism for expedited proceedings is a strategic decision which should be made under proper advisement.
