ICC reports on Expedited Procedure Provisions for arbitration

The ICC has published a report on the use, "eight years on", of its Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP), which offer a streamlined dispute resolution process.

EPP in action

The ICC introduced EPP in 2017, in response to concerns that its ordinary arbitral procedure was too time-consuming and expensive in the context of lower value disputes. The report from the ICC Commission on Arbitration & ADR's Working Group on EPP, led by Simmons International Head of Arbitration, Philippe Cavalieros, was published on 30 January 2026 and sets out statistics illustrating the success of the EPP, which have been used in 865 cases so far.

For now, the EPP apply automatically to disputes with a value of less than US$3m (raised from US$2m in 2021), unless the parties opt out. Levels of opt-out once the EPP is automatically invoked are very low, though some parties exclude its application in their arbitral agreement. Over 94% of cases in which the EPP has been used have been disputes involving less than US$3m. That indicates that, while comparatively rare, the possibility of parties deciding to use the EPP for higher value disputes is a real one. In fact, parties can and do choose to use the EPP for disputes involving higher amounts.

The EPP imposes a time-limit of 6 months for an award, from the date of the first case management conference. The report shows that awards were rendered within this time limit in 63% of cases with minor overspills for the rest thereof. A reduction in the arbitrator's fee can be applied by the ICC if the award is rendered significantly later, but the report shows that this occurred in only 33 cases in the first 8 years of the scheme.

Reducing costs

The report sets out details of the procedures adopted in the 461 EPP cases that resulted in a final award, illustrating the streamlined nature of the proceedings. Terms of reference, usually required in ICC arbitrations, are not required under EPP. It is notable that elements which typically increase the cost of proceedings are for the most part excluded: 79% of cases saw no orders for production of documents, while nearly 95% of cases did not involve expert evidence. Nearly half the cases were decided without a hearing and the majority of hearings that were held were virtual or hybrid, cutting the cost of travel for the parties and tribunal. Hearings ranged in length from one to four days.

Arbitrators' fees are subject to a 20% reduction in EPP cases. The default position under EPP is that the tribunal shall consist of a single arbitrator and this applied in the vast majority of cases, with only 59 cases seeing a panel of three appointed. The EPP allows for the appointment of a sole arbitrator even in cases where the parties have agreed to a three member tribunal and the ICC exercised this power in 65 cases. The report notes that the ICC has avoided doing this in arbitrations seated in jurisdictions where there were concerns about its compatibility with local law. The confirmation or appointment of Sole Arbitrators is the likely explanation for the very low rate of challenges to appointments, which occurred in only 1.4% of cases.

Dealing with dilatory parties

The report also notes the lack of evidence of significant numbers of cases being removed from the EPP due to tactical steps by dilatory parties. While parties can seek to avoid the EPP by overstating their claims or arguing that they are too complex, the report notes a robust approach by tribunals to such tactics. It gives the example of one case where a defendant filed a counterclaim large enough to take the case outside the EPP, but the tribunal remained in place and conducted proceedings largely in accordance with the EPP timetable, delivering an award in under 8 months.

Recommendations for using EPP

The report contains advice for parties engaging in EPP arbitrations and is accompanied by a toolkit for arbitrators. Notable points include a recommendation that, while full formal terms of reference should be avoided, some of their components should be adopted in the first procedural order, to ensure that all relevant procedural elements have been agreed or recorded. Where document production is crucial to the case, the parties and tribunal should consider ways to limit it by issues or number of requests. The report also suggests that parties should consider whether a list of issues to be determined would assist with case management. Pleadings can be ordered simultaneously rather than sequentially and can be limited by page number.

What this means for you

For parties choosing ICC arbitration to resolve commercial disputes, the report makes for encouraging reading. Lower value and less complex disputes can be hard to resolve economically and the EPP provide an effective solution, evidenced by the analysis of cases so far. The fact that EPP proceedings are mostly concluded within the timescales foreseen by the scheme, with evidence that dilatory tactics are unsuccessful, should boost confidence in the process. Parties with disputes of a value above the US$3m threshold may wish to consider whether opting in to the EPP might benefit all sides.