Arbitration Update: April 2026

By Julia Ogievetsky and Tulsi Bhatia

We outline below the significant arbitration developments in early 2026:

  1. The ICC publishes a suite of new guidance on arbitration conducted according to its expedited procedure provisions
  2. The Commercial Courts finds that ‘conditional benefit’ principle applies to arbitration agreements so as to bind an assignee
  3. Commercial Court affirms broad scope of section 45 applications in support of Investment Arbitration
  4. The LCIA opens public consultation on major rules revision

If any of the topics are of interest, please do not hesitate to reach out.

  1. The ICC publishes a suite of new guidance on arbitration conducted according to its expedited procedure provisions

The ICC Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”) provide for a more streamlined procedure: notably, they require the final award to be issued within six months from the date of the case management conference and, in order to do so, grant the arbitral tribunal:

“discretion to adopt such procedural measures as it considers appropriate. In particular,

the arbitral tribunal may, after consultation with the parties, decide not to allow requests for document production or to limit the number, length and scope of written submissions and written witness evidence (both fact witnesses and experts)”.

In January 2026, the ICC published the ICC Report: Expedited Procedure Provisions – Eight Years On, (the “Report”), accompanied by  (1) the ICC Toolkit for Arbitrators in Expedited Procedures (the “Toolkit”) – which provides practical guidance to arbitrators involved in applying the EPP (viz each stage of the arbitration process), and (2) the ICC Expedited Procedure Provisions Factsheet (the “Factsheet”).

As reiterated in the Report, since their entry into force in 2017, the EPP has been defined in the ICC Rules to apply by default to: (1) all disputes up to US$2 million where the arbitration agreement was signed on or after 1 March 2017, and (2) following a 2021 amendment, to all disputes up to US$3 million where the arbitration agreement was signed on or after 1 January 2021. Parties are otherwise expressly permitted to opt in or out of the EPP, irrespective of the amount in dispute, and at any time before or after the dispute arises.

The Report ultimately concludes that “EPP are a success” and work “resoundingly well” and that “users and arbitral tribunals have demonstrated that they can work within a streamlined and simplified procedure” while still maintaining the quality assurance of ICC Arbitration.

As set out in the Factsheet, between 2017 and 2024, 865 EPP cases were conducted and 461 final awards were rendered. It is particularly interesting that the Report finds that awards rendered under the EPP are “as good as any ICC award” (with their scrutiny by the ICC Court lasting only 15 days on average), and with only 12 challenges of EPP arbitrators (i.e., in only 1.4% of cases).

The Report therefore invites parties “to give proper consideration to opting into EPP – irrespective of the amount in dispute” and adds (correctly) that “six months is, for many, more than sufficient to litigate complex disputes, especially where the parties and the arbitral tribunal adopt proactive case management techniques.”  While, as per the Factsheet, only 5.6% of the EPP cases so far concerned amounts in dispute in excess of US$ 3 million, this number is likely to increase in the coming years, with parties opting for a ‘simplified’ procedure which appears to work well, and particularly where they are concerned about mounting arbitration costs (as set out in the Report, “[t]he issue of costs is one of the EPP’s raison d’être”).

  1. The Commercial Courts find that ‘conditional benefit’ principle applies to arbitration agreements so as to bind an assignee

In MS “V1” GmbH & Co KG & Anor v SY Co Ltd [2026] EWHC 52 (Comm), the Commercial Court (HHJ Pelling KC) rejected a challenge (to two awards) under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (on the basis of the tribunal’s jurisdiction).

In this case, the claimants had each purchased a ship (from the entities that had ordered them from the defendant) and took an assignment of post-delivery warranty guarantees given by the defendant in Article 9 of each of the shipbuilding contracts; each Article 9 also contained an arbitration clause, referring “any dispute” under this Article to LMAA arbitration. When the claimants discovered asbestos in the ships, they commenced tort claims in the Chinese courts to recover the removal costs of the same. The defendant argued that these claims were excluded by (each) Article 9 and that this dispute must be resolved by arbitration, while the claimants argued that: (1) they were not a party to the arbitration agreement, and/or (2) their claims were independent statutory claims not arising from the guarantees.

The Commercial Court  held that, although the claimants were not parties to the shipbuilding contracts, they were bound by the arbitration agreement under the ‘conditional benefit’ principle (by which “English law prevents the enforcement of rights derived from contracts by assignment or subrogation inconsistently with any constraint on enforcement imposed by the contract from which those rights are derived”). Having previously taken advantage of the guarantee rights that had been assigned to them (by making claims thereunder), the claimants must also be subject to the “constraints” imposed by the agreement which conferred those rights, which included being subject to the arbitration agreement.

This case is a notable example of a scenario where the agreement to arbitrate binds not only the parties to that agreement: assignees (who acquire any rights under a contract) should bear in mind that they may also become inadvertently bound by the arbitration agreement in that contract.

  1. Commercial Court affirms broad scope of section 45 applications in support of Investment Arbitration

The English High Court in Republic of India v CC Devas (Mauritius) Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 156 (Comm) reaffirmed its jurisdiction to decide preliminary questions of law under s. 45 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”), even where an arbitral tribunal has already issued procedural orders on the same point. This judgment is interesting as it clarifies the interplay between the law of the seat, the law of the place of incorporation for corporate parties, and the Court’s discretionary powers.

The dispute arose from the second set of investment treaty arbitration proceedings between the Republic of India and three Mauritian companies under the Mauritius–India BIT. The parties argued over who should represent the Mauritian companies: an administrator appointed by Mauritian courts following fraud allegations, who sought to terminate the companies’ existing counsel and stay the arbitration, versus the companies’ directors and shareholders (the “Interveners”). The Tribunal in a procedural order (“PO”) refused to recognise that the administrator had authority to appoint counsel on behalf of the companies to represent them in the arbitration and instead recognised the Interveners’ counsel.

India applied to the English High Court under s. 45 of the Act for a determination on a question of law, specifically which law should be applied to determine who had authority to act on behalf of the companies in these circumstances. The Interveners raised four threshold objections arguing the Court lacked jurisdiction or power to hear the s.45 application, and in this decision, the Court considered those preliminary issues and ultimately rejected them, finding in favour of India.

On the first issue, the Court held that whether there is valid agreement of all the parties to the s.45 application, is a question of English law for the Court to decide when assessing jurisdiction. Under English conflict of laws principles, the authority of an agent to act for a corporation is governed by the law of incorporation, which is Mauritian law in this case. Because the administrator’s appointment was presumptively valid under Mauritian law, the Court found he had the legal capacity to consent to the s.45 application on the companies’ behalf, irrespective of the Tribunal’s prior determination in the PO refusing to recognise the administrator for the purposes of the arbitration.

On the second and third issues, the Court held that s.45 empowers the Court to determine a question of law arising in arbitration; it is not a mechanism to overturn procedural orders (which are not “awards” under the Act). The existence of a procedural order on the same issue does not oust the Court’s jurisdiction. While a tribunal remains able to review or revisit its own orders, this does not prevent a party from seeking the Court’s view on a preliminary point of law under s.45.

On the final issue, the Court rejected the Interveners’ submission that s. 45 (i.e., an English law provision) was unavailable to the parties in circumstances where they had chosen international law as the substantive governing law. As the arbitration was seated in London, Part I of the Act applied and questions of procedure, including representation and who may bind a company in the proceedings, are governed by the law of the seat, i.e., England. Accordingly, procedural questions about representation fell well within the Court’s s.45 jurisdiction.

This case is particularly interesting because it establishes that a tribunal’s procedural order does not preclude a party from seeking a s.45 determination from the Court. Further, for insolvent or administered foreign entities, the law of incorporation remains the primary reference for who has authority to bind the company in legal proceedings, even if the tribunal has taken a different position for arbitration purposes.

It is evident from this case that s.45 remains a particularly useful, albeit infrequently used tool, for obtaining comfort on a preliminary legal issue which reduces the risk of a later challenge to an award under ss. 68 or 69 of the Act. Now that the Court has found it has jurisdiction to hear India’s s.45 application, it will be interesting to see how the Court decides the question of whether the Tribunal is required to apply Mauritian law to decide who has authority to instruct lawyers for the Mauritian claimant companies.

  1. The LCIA opens public consultation on major rules revision

The London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) has commenced a public consultation to overhaul its 2020 Arbitration Rules and Mediation Rules, with submissions for the first stage being welcomed until 11 May 2026. This initiative comes at a pivotal moment for London’s arbitration landscape, following the recent enactment of the Arbitration Act 2025 and amid intensifying competition from other leading arbitral institutions.

The consultation invites submissions on 13 targeted reform areas designed to enhance efficiency, cost management, and procedural effectiveness. The key areas for reform include modernising expedited procedures, refining the early determination mechanism, and updating emergency arbitrator provisions. The LCIA also intends to examine third-party funding disclosure requirements and related powers of the tribunal—potential developments that mirror recent reforms by competing institutions like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”).

A further area of possible update is introducing optional ad valorem fee schedules (similar to the costs system used by the ICC International Court of Arbitration) alongside existing hourly-rate models, which would offer parties greater flexibility in cost structures. The consultation also contemplates expanded alternative dispute resolution integration, including settlement windows and hybrid med-arb/ arb-med-arb procedures, which are similar to those offered by SIAC.

Perhaps most significantly, the consultation addresses AI’s growing impact on arbitration. Proposed provisions would establish disclosure requirements, procedural safeguards, and guidelines ensuring due process integrity while maintaining award enforceability in an AI-enhanced environment.

Additional areas include digital readiness enhancements, coordination mechanisms for multi-party disputes, and provisions for anonymized award publication which reflect broader industry trends toward transparency and technological advancement.

Practitioners who regularly use the LCIA Rules are encouraged to actively participate in this consultation process as far as possible, since the revised rules will likely establish new industry standards for international arbitration. Comments can be submitted at the LCIA Rules Revision Consultation Portal and updates on the consultation can be followed by emailing rulesconsult@lcia.org to join the mailing list. The comprehensive nature of this consultation indicates that the future updated LCIA Rules are likely to significantly impact procedural strategy and case management approaches moving forward, making early familiarisation with proposed changes essential for effective arbitration practice.