header-logo header-logo

23 January 2026 / Gustavo Moser
Issue: 8146 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration , ADR , International
printer mail-detail

Early determination: an appetite for efficiency

240519
To gain ground in arbitration, measured early determination is key, writes Gustavo Moser
  • With early determination, tribunals can dismiss plainly hopeless claims or defences efficiently.
  • Recent institutional and legislative reforms codify this power, promoting efficiency while safeguarding fairness.
  • Tribunals must apply it carefully to avoid due-process risks.

Early determination reconciles two arbitral imperatives: efficiency and fairness. It allows tribunals to dispose swiftly of claims or defences that are plainly unsustainable, reducing costs and delay without compromising procedural integrity. Once exceptional, the mechanism is now a regular feature of modern rule sets and legislation.

Institutional & legislative momentum

Arbitral institutions worldwide now expressly empower tribunals to dismiss manifestly unmeritorious or clearly unsustainable claims or defences. The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes introduced this power in 2006 (r 41(5)), later adopted by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (2016 r 29; 2025 r 47), the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Institute (2017, art 40; 2023, art 39), and Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (2018

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll