The ICC's Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions: Advantages and Drawbacks

The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) introduced new arbitration rules that take effect on 1 June 2026. A key change is the introduction of the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”), an opt-in procedure designed to help parties resolve straightforward disputes more quickly. HEAP is best suited to claims that are less complex and do not require extensive witness or expert evidence. This article provides a brief overview of HEAP and considers the advantages and disadvantages of the highly expedited procedure.

Advantages

Swift procedure 

The HEAP has a significantly shortened timeline - parties are required to jointly nominate a sole arbitrator within 20 days, failing which the ICC Court may appoint an arbitrator. 

The sole arbitrator must make a final award within three months of the initial case management conference, which needs to take place 7 days after the sole arbitrator has received the file from the ICC Secretariat. This time limit includes the time required for drafting the award, the ICC to scrutinise it, and for the parties to be notified.

The HEAP is a front-loaded process, as submissions such as the Request for Arbitration must be filed at the same time as the Statement of Claim. Additionally, parties can opt into having a document-only procedure without hearings or witness examinations. This leads to greater efficiency, a quicker result, and less client stress.

The sole arbitrator has express authority to limit the number, length and scope of submission; limit witness evidence, exclude document production altogether and decide the dispute on documents alone. 

Potentially lower costs 

With a shorter timeline, lower tribunal fees, and options for parties to agree to an award without reasons, there is potential for costs to be significantly reduced.

Disadvantages

Not suitable for complex disputes

The ICC remarks that "HEAP is not intended for procedurally complex disputes" and that joinder and consolidation provisions are not available under HEAP. Complex disputes are required to use the standard or expedited procedural rules. 

Reduced opportunity to present a case 

As submissions are front-loaded and combined, parties do not have the same opportunity to present their case as they do in a standard arbitration.

Sole arbitrator instead of a three-member tribunal

While a three-member tribunal enables arbitrators to challenge each other's reasoning and deliberate amongst themselves, a sole arbitrator does not have that internal check, and there is the risk of a party perceiving the arbitrator as biased. 

Requires agreement from both parties

Parties must mutually agree to opt into the provisions. Even where a client wishes to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible, if the other party does not agree to opt-into a HEAP, the standard or expedited provisions must be followed. 

Conclusion

Where a dispute is straightforward, opting into the HEAP enables parties to resolve their dispute quicker, more efficiently, and can save costs for the client. However, the provisions may not be suitable where a dispute is complex, parties wish to fully present their case or would prefer a tribunal over a sole arbitrator.