Expedited procedures – the obvious solution?
The ICC’s EPP offer a faster, cost-effective solution for low-value disputes. Sherif Akl and Stella Leptourgou examine their effectiveness, challenges and future potential in the realm of international arbitration.
The ICC Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”), introduced in 2017, were designed to offer a quicker and more cost-effective solution for resolving low-value disputes, in response to the users’ needs. On February 11, 2025, Stella Leptourgou, counsel at the ICC International Court of Arbitration, moderated a panel discussion on EPP at the ICC MENA Conference on International Arbitration. She referred to the first dispute ever administered by the ICC Court in December 1923, which was resolved within approximately one month, noting that the EPP is not such a new creation after all.
Panel member Nada Sader, partner at Sader Arbitration, first set out the criteria for the application of the EPP. She explained that the EPP can apply automatically if the value of the dispute is below USD2 million (as of March 1, 2017) or USD3 million (as of January 1, 2021) and the relevant arbitration agreement was concluded. While the parties retain the power to opt-in or opt-out of the EPP by agreement, the application of the provisions is also dependent on the ICC Court’s discretion, as outlined in Article 30 of the ICC Rules of Arbitration.
A working group was formed in 2023 within the ICC Commission on Arbitration & ADR to review the first seven years of the EPP. As Lara Hammoud – co-head of the working group – explained, this review and the corresponding statistical data revealed the overall effectiveness of the EPP, especially when compared to the traditional arbitration process. Between 2017 and 2023, the ICC Court administered 713 arbitrations under the EPP, with an average amount in dispute of USD1.05 million and the highest amount being USD400 million. In 81 per cent of the cases, the EPP automatically applied, 56 per cent of the cases included hearings, and only 21 per cent thereof involved document production. Lastly, the average duration of the award scrutiny in EPP cases was 14 days, and 43 per cent of the EPP cases were resolved within six months, while in the majority of the remaining cases, the delay was either minor or due to an extended timetable agreed upon by the parties. The working group also aimed to prepare a toolkit for arbitrators unfamiliar with the process, to ensure a more efficient application of the EPP.
To Leptourgou’s question as to whether regional specificities may have an impact on the effective implementation of expedited procedures, Abdallah El Shehaby, partner at Jurisera, explained that, despite potential cultural differences, the core goal of offering inexpensive, swift justice ultimately remains the same across regions.
Leptourgou further asked the panel on the potential risk of comparing qualitative and quantitative criteria and, specifically, whether there is a danger in equating what is understood as a ‘simple’ case with a ‘small-value’ case. El Shehaby claimed that even low-value claims can unexpectedly lead to complications, which underscores the importance of arbitrators taking a proactive approach. Cherine Ghali, arbitrator at Ghali & Co., similarly highlighted that low-value claims are not always as simple as they may seem, often due to parties misunderstanding the EPP rules or introducing excessive issues. She emphasised the importance of educating the parties and the tribunal’s firm/active case management from the outset to ensure that the procedure is used appropriately. El Shehaby clarified that although this proactive case management is crucial, caution must be exercised to avoid over-restrictive directions, which could breach due process and affect the enforceability of the award.
In the same vein, El Shehaby and Ghali discussed how parties might try to exploit the EPP to benefit from cheaper arbitration, in cases where, for example, the true value of the claims is significantly higher or the dispute is complex and technical, involving overwhelming documentation. The speakers referred in this regard to the possible use of AI-assisted tools for managing documentation, as well as the gate-keeping function of the ICC Court, as set forth in Article 1(4) of Appendix VI.
The panel expressed certain concerns in the past about a potential breach of party autonomy in the tribunal constitution in light of the ICC Court’s power to appoint a sole arbitrator despite the arbitration agreement providing for a three-member arbitral tribunal. However, Sader concluded against the existence of any such risks that could affect the validity and/or enforcement of the award, referring to the current status of the jurisprudence in this respect.
Finally, the question of raising the EPP threshold beyond USD3 million was raised during the panel discussion. Hammoud suggested that, given the positive outcomes and growing demand for faster arbitration, the threshold might be increased to allow more disputes to benefit from the EPP. While the potential to increase the threshold is still under review, the panel agreed that any change would require careful consideration to ensure that the goals of the EPP and the arbitral process more generally – speed, cost-effectiveness, and high-quality and enforceable awards – are not compromised.
In conclusion, the EPP have proven to be an efficient tool for resolving low-value disputes swiftly and cost-effectively. By streamlining arbitration processes and reducing costs, the EPP addresses the growing demand for faster and cheaper dispute resolution. However, for the EPP to remain effective, arbitrators must be proactive in managing cases, and parties must be educated about the rules and their implications. As technology continues to advance and plays a larger role in arbitration, AI tools may further enhance the efficiency of the EPP, ensuring that it remains a reliable and accessible option for low-value claims. While the question of raising the EPP threshold remains open, the future of expedited arbitration looks promising, provided that the balance between speed, fairness and quality is maintained.
Text by:
- Sherif Akl, director, Arbitration and ADR, Middle East, ICC Dispute Resolution Services
- Stella Leptourgou, counsel, ICC International Court of Arbitration
