# Choosing a Forum for a Private-Capital Dispute: Arbitral Institutions and Commercial Courts

> Compare arbitral institutions and commercial courts on seat, emergency relief, expedited routes, published fees on a US$10m claim, confidentiality and sanctions payments.

Author: Alena Dunaeva — Lawyer, Family Office (https://wiki.private.law/en/authors/dunaeva)
Last modified: 2026-09-20T21:13:00.000Z
Canonical: https://wiki.private.law/en/arbitration-forum-comparison
Publisher: wiki.private.law (https://wiki.private.law)
Version: f0c56f697234ddce1308b22fc4d6b45a2d93bbbe3501e5cb40f7433b7d60ee80
Cite as: Choosing a Forum for a Private-Capital Dispute: Arbitral Institutions and Commercial Courts. wiki.private.law. https://wiki.private.law/en/arbitration-forum-comparison. Version f0c56f697234ddce1308b22fc4d6b45a2d93bbbe3501e5cb40f7433b7d60ee80.
Topics: structures
Jurisdictions: global, uk, eu, uae, singapore, hong-kong, switzerland, cyprus
Product tags: wealth-planning, compliance
Semantic tags: wealth-planning, compliance

---

The forum for a private-capital dispute is chosen years before the dispute exists, in three or four lines of a share purchase agreement, a shareholders' agreement, a facility or a trust deed. By the time the fight starts, that choice is fixed. It decides which law governs the arbitration agreement, which single court in the world can annul the award, how quickly anything can be frozen, how much the process costs before the first lawyer is paid, and whether the counterparty has a statutory argument for not turning up at all.

What happens *after* an award or a judgment exists — recognition, the closed list of defences, collectability against real assets — is the subject of [cross-border disputes and enforcement](https://wiki.private.law/en/cross-border-disputes), and picking the route by the kind of legal problem belongs to the [disputes route map](https://wiki.private.law/en/disputes-hub). The question here is narrower: which forum, and why that one.

## The clause makes four choices, not one

A clause reading "arbitration in London under the LCIA Rules" has taken four separate decisions, and each of them can be got wrong independently.

**The seat.** The seat is not the hearing venue; it is the legal home of the arbitration, and the courts of the seat are the only courts anywhere that can set the award aside. That is why the seat is worth more drafting attention than the institution. Absent agreement, institutions fill the gap differently: London under [Article 16.2](https://www.lcia.org/Dispute_Resolution_Services/lcia-arbitration-rules-2020.aspx) of the LCIA Rules, Vienna under Article 25(1) of the Vienna Rules, the DIFC under Article 20.1 of the 2022 DIAC Rules, and under [Article 19(1)](https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-procedure/2026-arbitration-rules/) of the 2026 ICC Rules no default at all — the ICC Court fixes it.

**The law of the arbitration agreement.** England changed its default rule in 2025. The [Arbitration Act 2025](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/4/section/1) inserted a new section 6A into the Arbitration Act 1996, in force from 1 August 2025: the law applicable to an arbitration agreement is the law the parties *expressly* agree, or failing that the law of the seat — and agreement that a particular law governs the contract of which the arbitration agreement forms part "does not constitute express agreement that that law also applies to the arbitration agreement". A clause choosing Kazakh or UAE substantive law with a London seat therefore now has an English-law arbitration agreement unless it says otherwise. Article 16.4 of the LCIA Rules has said the same for years.

**The institution.** The institution supplies the rules, the appointing authority, the emergency machinery and the fee model. On a mid-size claim the fee model matters more than the brand: an ad valorem institution charges by the number in the prayer for relief, an hourly institution charges by the work done.

**The language and the tribunal size.** Three arbitrators cost roughly three times one, and on an ad valorem scale that multiple is written into the rules rather than negotiated.

## Four questions that remove options before you compare

**Will the result be enforceable where the assets are?** This is the question that most often eliminates courts in favour of arbitration, and it is answered by treaty coverage rather than by the quality of the forum.

**Can both sides physically pay?** An institution that cannot lawfully receive the advance on costs from your counterparty cannot administer the case. Two institutions publish the route in detail: the [SCC](https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/en/resource-library/eu-sanctions/) states that payments of the registration fee or advance on costs from sanctioned or listed parties, and from Russian or Belarusian parties or bank accounts, require its approval before remittance, and that an authorisation under Article 4(1)(b) of EU Regulation 269/2014 must be obtained from the National Board of Trade for an entity or the Social Insurance Agency for an individual; it also warns that surplus advances may be unrefundable while the transaction prohibition in Article 5aa(1)(a) of Regulation 833/2014 applies. [VIAC](https://www.viac.eu/en/rules-and-tools-at-a-glance/resources-at-a-glance/viac-note-on-sanctions/) states that it may have to obtain clearance from the Austrian National Bank to make or receive payments, at the filing, at every advance, when paying arbitrators and when returning leftover advances. Both rely on the same access-to-justice exemption for legal services.

**Is there a statute on the other side claiming the dispute?** Exclusive-jurisdiction rules can make a perfectly drafted clause unenforceable in the counterparty's home court, which matters if that is where the assets are.

**Do you need relief a tribunal cannot give?** Emergency arbitrators bind the parties, not third parties: an order against a bank, a registrar or a custodian comes from a court. Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 2025 inserted section 41A into the 1996 Act so that an emergency arbitrator in a London-seated case can make a peremptory order, and amended section 42 so that the English court can enforce it.

> ⚠️ An arbitration clause in the SPA and a court jurisdiction clause in the shareholders' agreement, the loan or the escrow deed is the single commonest cause of a two-year fight about where the fight happens. Align every document in the deal, including side letters, security documents and the trust deed, on one forum and one seat before signing.

## Institutions: what the rules give you

| **Institution** | **Rules in force** | **Default seat** | **Emergency arbitrator** | **Expedited or summary route** | **Confidentiality in the rules** | **Who may pay the fees** |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| LCIA | 2020 Rules; Schedule of Costs of 1 December 2023 | London, unless the tribunal orders otherwise (Art 16.2) | Appointed within 3 days, decision within 14 days (Arts 9.6, 9.8) | Expedited formation (Art 9A); Early Determination of claims manifestly without merit (Art 22.1(viii)) | Express, binding parties, tribunal and secretary, and covering awards and materials (Arts 30.1–30.2) | Invoiced in sterling, payable in other convertible currencies (Schedule, s.1(vi)) |
| ICC | 2026 Rules, for arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2026 | None: the Court fixes it (Art 19(1)) | Appendix IV; fee US$50,000 | Expedited Procedure automatic up to US$4,000,000 for clauses concluded from 1 June 2026, award within 6 months of the first case-management conference; Highly Expedited Arbitration by unanimous agreement, award within 3 months; Early Determination (Art 30) | Work of the Court and Secretariat confidential (Appendix I, Art 2); no general duty on the parties | Direct from the parties; third-party payment only against evidence of the legal relationship (Appendix III, Art 1) |
| SIAC | 2025 Rules (7th edition) | None for the arbitration itself: the tribunal determines the seat absent agreement (Rule 36.1); emergency interim relief proceedings are seated in Singapore (Schedule 1, para 12) | Emergency interim relief application fee S$5,000 for overseas parties; appointed within 24 hours of a complete application, order or award within 14 days (Schedule 1, paras 7, 17) | Streamlined automatic where the amount in dispute does not exceed S$1,000,000: sole arbitrator, documents-only by default, award within 3 months, fees capped at 50 per cent of the maximum (Rule 13, Schedule 2); Expedited on application above that up to S$10,000,000, award within 6 months (Rule 14, Schedule 3); Early Dismissal decided within 45 days (Rule 47) | Express continuing duty on the parties, their representatives, witnesses, experts, funders, the tribunal and SIAC, covering the arbitration's existence, its materials and the award (Rule 59); awards published only redacted and with every party's written agreement (Rule 60); hearings private (Rule 39.3) | — |
| HKIAC | 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules; Schedule of Fees | Hong Kong, unless the tribunal determines another seat is more appropriate (Art 14.1) | Application deposit HK$250,000; the arbitrator's total fees capped at HK$200,000 (Schedule 4, para 5) | Expedited Procedure available where the amount in dispute does not exceed HK$50,000,000 (Art 42.1(a)) | Express, binding the parties, their representatives, the tribunal, the emergency arbitrator, experts, witnesses and HKIAC, and covering the arbitration and any award or Emergency Decision (Arts 45.1–45.2); deliberations confidential (Art 45.4); HKIAC may publish awards only anonymised and absent a party's objection (Art 45.5) | — |
| DIAC | 2022 Rules; Table of Fees and Costs of 1 January 2025 | DIFC, with the tribunal free to fix another seat once constituted (Art 20.1) | Appendix II; US$53,000 all in | Expedited proceedings automatic up to AED 1,000,000, or by agreement or exceptional urgency; award within 3 months of the file reaching the tribunal (Art 32) | No general confidentiality article; hearings in private unless agreed otherwise (Art 26.5) | Only from an account in the name of a party or of its lawyer on the record; other payments may be returned at the Centre's discretion; advances directed in AED |
| SCC | 2023 Arbitration Rules; fee tables of 1 January 2024 | Decided by the Board absent agreement (Art 25(1)) | Appointed within 24 hours, decision within 5 days; EUR 20,000 | Separate Rules for Expedited Arbitrations 2023 | Express but narrower: binds the SCC, the tribunal and any secretary, and covers the award (Art 3) | Approval before remittance for sanctioned, Russian and Belarusian payers; national authorisation required |
| VIAC | Vienna Rules 2021; Annex 3 schedule of fees | Vienna (Art 25(1)) | None: interim measures come from the tribunal once constituted (Art 33) | Expedited proceedings only by express agreement; sole arbitrator by default; award within 6 months of the file reaching the tribunal (Art 45) | Hearings not open to the public (Art 30(2)); VIAC may publish anonymised extracts of awards unless a party objects within 30 days (Art 41) | Austrian National Bank clearance may be required at filing, at each advance, on payment to arbitrators and on refunds |

Three of these columns decide real outcomes. The **emergency arbitrator** column is the one to read first if the counterparty can move money: the SCC appoints within 24 hours and decides within five days, the LCIA appoints within three days and decides within fourteen, and VIAC has no emergency arbitrator at all, so a Vienna clause leaves pre-constitution relief entirely to national courts. The **expedited** column is where the drafting date matters: the ICC's automatic threshold rose to US$4,000,000 for clauses concluded on or after 1 June 2026, stays at US$3,000,000 for clauses concluded between 1 January 2021 and that date, and is US$2,000,000 for clauses concluded between 1 March 2017 and 1 January 2021 — so two otherwise identical claims can be expedited or not depending on when the contract was signed. The **confidentiality** column separates rules that bind the *parties* from rules that bind only the institution: the LCIA imposes a general undertaking on the parties themselves; the SCC's Article 3 binds the SCC, the tribunal and its secretary; the ICC's provision protects the work of the Court; and the 2022 DIAC Rules contain no general confidentiality article, only private hearings. If secrecy is the reason for choosing arbitration, it has to be put in the clause rather than assumed from the rules.

Comparative duration figures deserve care. Only the LCIA publishes an externally audited study: its [2024 costs and duration analysis](https://www.lcia.org/lcia/reports.aspx), prepared with The Brattle Group and covering every case that reached a final award between 1 January 2017 and 12 May 2024, reports a median total duration of 20 months, a median time from the last submission to the award of four months, median total arbitration costs of US$117,653 and a median amount in dispute of US$4.6 million. The report also records that the LCIA has repeatedly invited other institutions to commission the same independent analysis. Until they do, cross-institutional "average duration" claims rest on data that has not been audited to the same standard, and the only thing safely comparable between institutions is the published fee scale.

## What the published scales cost

Each institution publishes its scale in its own currency, so the figures below are taken at the scale point nearest US$10 million in that currency rather than converted.

| **Institution** | **Fee basis** | **Filing or registration** | **Administrative fee** | **Arbitrator's fee, one arbitrator** | **Three-member tribunal** | **Emergency arbitrator, all in** |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ICC, at US$10,000,000 | Ad valorem, US$ scale effective 1 June 2026 | US$5,000 | US$55,514 | US$39,167 minimum, US$187,400 maximum | Normally up to three times one arbitrator's fee (Appendix III, Art 6) | US$50,000 (US$12,500 ICC, US$37,500 arbitrator) |
| DIAC, at US$10,000,000 | Ad valorem, table effective 1 January 2025 | US$3,000 | US$51,750 | US$50,000 minimum, US$152,680 maximum | Table applied per arbitrator | US$53,000 (US$3,000 registration, US$35,000 arbitrator, US$15,000 administrative) |
| SCC, at EUR 10,000,000 | Ad valorem, tables effective 1 January 2024 | EUR 3,000 | EUR 51,125 | Chair EUR 50,000 to EUR 152,680 | Each co-arbitrator receives 60 per cent of the chair's fee (Appendix IV, Art 2(2)), so 2.2 times the chair | EUR 20,000, or EUR 25,000 with VAT |
| VIAC, at EUR 10,000,000 | Ad valorem, Annex 3 | EUR 1,500 | EUR 30,500 maximum | Sole arbitrator EUR 83,100 | 2.5 times the sole-arbitrator rate, EUR 207,750, which the Secretary General may raise or cut by up to 40 per cent (Art 44(8)) | Not available |
| SIAC, at S$10,000,000 | Ad valorem, Schedule of Fees | S$2,000 for overseas parties | S$38,800 | Maximum S$161,900 | Schedule applied per arbitrator | S$5,000 application fee for overseas parties |
| HKIAC, at HK$80,000,000 | Parties choose hourly (Schedule 2) or ad valorem (Schedule 3); hourly applies by default if they do not agree within 30 days | HK$10,000 | HK$211,200 | Ad valorem maximum HK$1,070,960, or hourly at up to HK$7,500 | Table applied per arbitrator | HK$250,000 deposit (HK$45,000 HKIAC, HK$205,000 arbitrator) |
| LCIA, any amount | Hourly only; no ad valorem element | £1,950 | Secretariat time at £300 for the Registrar, £285 for counsel, £220 for case administrators, plus 5 per cent of the tribunal's fees for overhead | £250 to £650 an hour | Three sets of hours, with no scale multiple | £35,000 (£10,000 application, £25,000 arbitrator) |

The structural difference is larger than any of the individual numbers. On a US$10 million claim decided by three arbitrators, the ICC's own maximum for the tribunal is about US$562,000 and its administrative expenses US$55,514, so the institutional bill alone can approach US$620,000 before counsel, experts or a hearing venue. The LCIA charges the same claim by the hour: a tribunal of three senior arbitrators at £650 spending 400 hours between them comes to £260,000, plus £13,000 of LCIA overhead and the Secretariat's own time. Below roughly US$5 million the ad valorem institutions are usually cheaper, because an hourly tribunal still has to read the file; above it the arithmetic reverses, and on claims of US$100 million and more the gap is wide enough to be a drafting consideration in its own right.

Two smaller numbers carry disproportionate weight. The first is the cost of urgent relief: US$50,000 at the ICC, US$53,000 at DIAC, £35,000 at the LCIA, HK$250,000 at HKIAC, S$5,000 to apply at SIAC and EUR 20,000 at the SCC — and nothing at all available at VIAC. The second is the emergency arbitrator's *deadline*, because a freezing order that arrives in five days and one that arrives in six weeks are different products. On both counts the SCC is the cheapest and fastest of this group, which is precisely why its sanctions-payment constraints matter so much to parties with a Russian connection.

The Dubai picture changed in 2021 and legacy clauses still carry the consequence. [Decree No. 34 of 2021](https://dlp.dubai.gov.ae/Legislation%20Reference/2021/Decree%20No.%20\(34\)%20of%202021.pdf) abolished the Emirates Maritime Arbitration Centre and the DIFC Arbitration Institute — the DIFC-LCIA vehicle — transferred their assets, arbitrator lists and obligations to DIAC, and by Article 6(a) deemed all existing agreements to arbitrate at the abolished centres valid, with DIAC replacing them "unless otherwise agreed by the parties". A share purchase agreement signed in 2019 that says "DIFC-LCIA" therefore now routes to DIAC under the 2022 DIAC Rules, with a DIFC default seat and the DIAC fee table — a different institution, a different fee model and a different emergency-arbitrator price than the parties priced at signature. Any UAE-facing document in a portfolio is worth re-reading for that phrase.

## Courts instead of arbitration

| **Court** | **How you get in** | **Language** | **Threshold** | **Appeal** | **Distinctive feature** |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| English Commercial Court | A jurisdiction clause, or a connecting factor recognised by English private international law | English | None | Court of Appeal, then the Supreme Court with permission | The court behind the Arbitration Act 1996 as amended in 2025: summary awards, emergency-arbitrator enforcement and a narrowed jurisdiction rehearing |
| DIFC Courts | Default jurisdiction over DIFC-connected matters, plus written opt-in with no required UAE connection; the governing law of the contract is unaffected | English | None | DIFC Court of Appeal | 243 opt-in filings in the first half of 2026, 30 per cent of 810 cases; an Arbitration Division in which 8 of 11 opt-in cases concerned arbitrations seated abroad |
| ADGM Courts | ADGM-connected matters and agreed submission | English | — | ADGM Court of Appeal | The first jurisdiction in the Middle East to apply English common law directly, on a fully digital court platform |
| Singapore International Commercial Court | An international and commercial claim, a written jurisdiction agreement, and no prerogative relief sought (Order 2 rule 1, SICC Rules 2021); also by transfer from the High Court | English | None | Court of Appeal | A division of the General Division of the High Court, with a register of foreign lawyers and law experts who may appear |
| Swiss cantonal commercial courts | Commercial matter, both parties on a commercial register, sole cantonal instance (Art 6, Civil Procedure Code); since 1 January 2025 also by agreement in international matters | Cantonal official language; cantonal law may allow English in international commercial disputes (Art 129(2)(b)) | CHF 30,000 generally; CHF 100,000 for the agreed international route | Direct to the Federal Supreme Court, as the cantonal court is the sole instance | One instance instead of two, with commercial judges sitting alongside professional ones |
| Cyprus Commercial Court | Any commercial dispute above the threshold, at first instance (Law 69(I)/2022 as amended, Art 3(1)(a)) | Greek, but the judge may order the whole proceeding, the filings and the judgment in English on a party's application (Art 15) | EUR 2,000,000 | Court of Appeal (Art 16) | An EU court that can run in English, with judges required to have a very good command of the language (Art 5) |
| Hong Kong Court of First Instance | As the supervisory court whenever Hong Kong is the seat, and on ordinary commercial jurisdiction otherwise | English and Chinese, both official; arbitration applications are heard in the Construction and Arbitration List | None | Court of Appeal, then the Court of Final Appeal | The supervisory court behind every Hong Kong-seated arbitration: set-aside only on Model Law Article 34 grounds (Cap. 609, s. 81), awards enforced with leave of the court (s. 84), emergency-arbitrator relief enforceable (ss. 22A–22B), and HKIAC as the statutory default appointing authority (ss. 23–24) |

A court is the better answer in three recurring situations. The first is where you want a *public* precedent — a judgment that settles a point for every other counterparty on the same template, which an arbitral award cannot do. The second is where the opponent is likely to be insolvent or evasive and you need the court's own coercive machinery from day one rather than a tribunal that has to be constituted first. The third is where the dispute is really about a register, a title or a third party, because a tribunal binds only those who agreed to arbitrate.

The opt-in commercial courts have made this a live choice outside the traditional seats. The DIFC Courts report that nearly half of their opt-in first-instance claims in the first half of 2026 involved at least one party based outside the UAE, and in some cases no UAE party at all, with parties from 13 overseas jurisdictions; the court states that opting in requires no UAE connection and does not change the governing law the parties chose. Switzerland has gone the other way about, opening its cantonal commercial courts to international parties by agreement from 1 January 2025 where the value in dispute is at least CHF 100,000 and at least one party is domiciled abroad, and allowing cantons to permit those proceedings in English. Cyprus, useful for the very large number of holding structures that sit there, now has a Commercial Court that will hear a claim above EUR 2 million and can be asked to run it in English. Each of these produces a *judgment*, so the enforcement analysis differs from an award and has to be run against the country where the assets are before the clause is signed.

## Choosing by the shape of the dispute

| **Dispute** | **What actually decides the forum** | **Usual answer** | **What goes wrong** |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Shareholder conflict, deadlock, oppression | Whether the remedy you need is a share transfer or a company-law order that only the company's own court can make | Arbitration for the buy-out mechanics, with the company's seat court reserved for statutory remedies | One clause for the SPA and another for the SHA, so the buy-out and the oppression claim go to different forums |
| M&A warranties and indemnities | Claim size against the fee scale, and the need for a fast knock-out of hopeless heads of claim | Ad valorem institution with a summary route: ICC Early Determination, LCIA Article 22.1(viii), or a London seat for section 39A summary awards | Notice periods and caps in the sale agreement expiring while the parties argue about the forum |
| Trust dispute | The governing law of the trust and whether the trustee can be compelled at all | The trust's own jurisdiction, not a commercial forum | Treating removal of a trustee as a contract claim and arbitrating it |
| Family asset inside a corporate structure | Matrimonial jurisdiction and the property regime, which no commercial clause can displace | The family court with jurisdiction; the corporate layer follows | Relying on an arbitration clause in the holding company's documents |
| Investment dispute against a state | The treaty's own standing offer to arbitrate, which section 6A of the 1996 Act expressly leaves alone | Treaty arbitration; the state's immunity questions come later | Mixing a commercial clause into a treaty claim |
| Banking, credit and security | Where the collateral is and whose court can seize it | Court jurisdiction in the place of the collateral, with arbitration only for the contractual layer | An arbitration clause that leaves enforcement against the asset to a court that never saw the case |

Two of these rows connect to machinery documented elsewhere. The deal-dispute row runs through the protections written into the sale documents — [SPA and SHA mechanics](https://wiki.private.law/en/spa-sha-mechanics) sets out how warranties, indemnities, escrow and deadlock provisions allocate the risk that the forum will later be asked to price. The trust row runs through the trust's governing law, and the choice of that law is made when the structure is set up — see [choosing a trust jurisdiction](https://wiki.private.law/en/jersey-vs-singapore-vs-nz-trust) and [trustee and protector](https://wiki.private.law/en/trustee-protector).

## Where clauses go wrong

- **Naming an institution that no longer exists.** DIFC-LCIA clauses now operate as DIAC clauses by force of Decree No. 34 of 2021.
- **Choosing the institution and forgetting the seat.** The seat decides the annulment court and, since 1 August 2025 in England, the law of the arbitration agreement itself.
- **Assuming confidentiality.** Only some rule sets impose it on the parties; the 2022 DIAC Rules do not, and VIAC may publish anonymised extracts unless a party objects within 30 days.
- **Assuming an emergency arbitrator exists.** The Vienna Rules have none.
- **Pricing a three-member tribunal as if it were one.** The multiple is in the rules: three times at the ICC, 2.5 times at VIAC, 2.2 times the chair at the SCC.
- **Ignoring who can pay.** A counterparty that needs a national authorisation to remit the advance on costs can stall a case for months without breaching anything.
> 🍓 The choice worth agonising over is the seat, not the institution. The institution sets the price and the speed, and both can be estimated from published scales before signature; the seat sets the law of the arbitration agreement, the only court that can annul the award, and the court that will or will not support the tribunal with coercive orders. Institutions can be compared on a spreadsheet. A badly chosen seat cannot be fixed later.

## Q/A

### Choosing the clause

### **Is a well-known institution worth paying more for?**

It depends what "more" buys. The published scales differ by a factor of several on a large claim, and the differences that change outcomes are procedural rather than reputational: how fast urgent relief can be obtained, whether hopeless claims can be knocked out early, and whether the rules impose confidentiality on the parties. All three are visible in the rules before signature.

### **We chose Kazakh law and a London seat. Which law governs the arbitration clause?**

English law, unless the contract expressly says the arbitration agreement is governed by Kazakh law. Section 6A of the Arbitration Act 1996, in force from 1 August 2025, makes the law of the seat the default and states that choosing a law for the contract as a whole is not an express choice for the arbitration agreement inside it.

### **Our 2019 agreement says DIFC-LCIA. Is the clause dead?**

No. Decree No. 34 of 2021 deems such agreements valid and substitutes DIAC unless the parties agree otherwise, so the case will be administered under the 2022 DIAC Rules with a DIFC default seat. The practical question is whether you would still have chosen that fee model and that emergency-arbitrator price, and if not, whether the counterparty will agree to re-paper the clause.

### Cost and speed

### **How much will the institution itself cost on a US$10 million claim?**

At the ICC, US$55,514 of administrative expenses plus a tribunal fee that the Court fixes between US$39,167 and US$187,400 per arbitrator, normally capped at three times one arbitrator's fee for a panel. At DIAC, US$51,750 plus US$50,000 to US$152,680 per arbitrator. At the LCIA there is no scale: £1,950 to register, £250 to £650 an hour for the tribunal, the Secretariat's hourly time and 5 per cent of the tribunal's fees as overhead. None of these figures includes counsel, experts or the hearing.

### **Which institution gets an urgent freeze fastest?**

Of the institutions compared here, the SCC: an emergency arbitrator appointed within 24 hours of a complete application and a decision within five days, for EUR 20,000. The LCIA appoints within three days and decides within fourteen. The Vienna Rules have no emergency arbitrator, so a Vienna clause leaves pre-constitution relief to national courts. In every case an order against a bank or a registrar still has to come from a court, because an emergency arbitrator binds only the parties.

### **Is there a route to an award in three months?**

Yes, by agreement. Highly Expedited Arbitration under Article 33 and Appendix VI of the 2026 ICC Rules requires the final award within three months of the initial case-management conference, and applies only when all parties agree. DIAC's expedited proceedings impose the same three-month deadline but apply automatically only up to AED 1,000,000. The ICC's ordinary Expedited Procedure gives six months, as does VIAC's.

### Courts and arbitration

### **When is a commercial court the better choice?**

When you want a public precedent that binds your whole counterparty base, when you need coercive machinery immediately rather than after a tribunal is constituted, or when the real target is a register, a title or a third party that never agreed to arbitrate. The trade-off is the enforcement instrument: a judgment travels by treaty and reciprocity, an award travels under the New York Convention — the comparison is set out in [cross-border disputes](https://wiki.private.law/en/cross-border-disputes).

### **Can we litigate in English inside the EU?**

In two of the forums here. Cyprus allows the Commercial Court to conduct the whole proceeding and give judgment in English on a party's application where the interest of justice requires it, for claims above EUR 2 million. Switzerland, outside the EU but inside the same commercial orbit, lets cantons permit English in international commercial disputes brought by agreement under Article 6(4)(c) of its Civil Procedure Code, where the value is at least CHF 100,000 and at least one party is domiciled abroad.

### **Does opting into the DIFC Courts change our governing law?**

No. The DIFC Courts state that parties who opt in by written agreement remain free to choose the governing law, which the court then applies, and that no UAE connection is required to opt in. What changes is the forum and the instrument you end up holding.

---

## Factual claims

- The law of the arbitration agreement.
- Each institution publishes its scale in its own currency, so the figures below are taken at the scale point nearest US$10 million in that currency rather than converted.
- The Dubai picture changed in 2021 and legacy clauses still carry the consequence.

---

Source: wiki.private.law — the private.law legal knowledge base. When quoting, cite the canonical page URL.
Consultation with a lawyer: https://t.me/private_law_bot