A Faster Path To Resolution? Key Findings From The ICC's EPP Report (2017–2024)

Summary

In January 2026, the ICC released a report analysing eight years of data on its Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP) between 2017 and 2024 (inclusive). The Report gives businesses a clearer sense of when this streamlined route will save time and cost, and when it may not. For organisations managing lower‑value or time‑critical disputes, the findings underline that the EPP may, in the right circumstances, offer a faster process with more predictable duration and proportionate process than a full‑scale arbitration.

Background to the EPP measures

In 2017, the ICC introduced EPP for smaller disputes to reduce the time and cost burden that can occur, particularly during the stages of document production, expert evidence and in connection with hearings. 

The key features of the EPP (as contained in Appendix VI of the ICC Rules) are: 

• It applies by default to disputes under USD 2–3 million (depending on the contract date), but parties can opt in for higher‑value but straightforward disputes, or opt out where the issues are more complex. 
• Tribunals work to a six‑month award deadline.
• The ICC can appoint a sole arbitrator, even where contracts originally envisaged three arbitrators.

Summary of the ICC data 

• Uptake and Opt‑In Behaviour: Cases have increased year‑on‑year between 2017 and 2023, with organisations increasingly opting in even for higher‑value disputes, signalling growing confidence in a faster and more predictable process.
  • Since their introduction, 865 expedited procedures have been conducted. 
    • 16% were opt-in cases, meaning sophisticated parties are actively choosing it. The vast majority were cases where the arbitration agreement preceded EPP's entry into force, while in just 5.5% of the cases, the amount in dispute exceeded the cap. 
    • Parties agreed to opt out in only 31 cases.
  • Of the 865 EPP cases conducted, 461 cases resulted in a final award between 2017 and 2024, with the remainder either settled, or are still in progress. In 17 cases, the ICC Court decided that the EPP would no longer apply.
  • The number of new EPP-administered cases grew year on year, from just 15 in 2017 to a record 189 in 2023, lowering to 152 in 2024. 
• Faster outcomes: Timing is often the biggest pressure point for clients. The EPP data demonstrates that parties can usually expect an award within a reliable window. 
  • Of the 461 awards issued so far:
    • 63% met (within what the ICC considers a tolerable margin) the six‑month deadline.
    • Scrutiny of the award by the ICC averaged 15 days, and reductions of the arbitrator's fees, which the ICC Court may order where the draft award is submitted after the deadline occurred in 33 cases out of 461 (around 7%).
• A leaner process that reduces cost drivers: Taken together, the statistics point to a leaner process that avoids many of the cost‑intensive features of standard arbitration. Fewer procedural steps mean fewer legal fees, without sacrificing due process. Out of the 461 cases that resulted in a final award:
  • Only 96 cases included a document production phase.
  • Only 26 cases included expert evidence.
  • Hearings were only held in 251 cases and lasted between one and four days, with 159 remote or hybrid hearings; and 
  • Post-hearing briefs were only submitted in 139 cases.

Where the EPP Still Faces Challenges

While the EPP offers a faster and more streamlined route to resolving disputes, the review highlights practical constraints. Tribunal constitution still took around three months on average, which can erode some of the intended time savings, even though most cases proceed with a sole arbitrator. New claims raised after the constitution can disrupt the compressed timetable and require early case management. Costs also remain a concern, with tribunals scrutinising submissions closely given the typically lower value of EPP cases. Although attempts to sidestep the EPP by inflating claims or asserting undue complexity appear limited, the regime's success still depends on parties maintaining discipline and proportionality throughout the process.

The ICC Report is supplemented by a Toolkit for Arbitrators in Expedited Procedures, which provides practical guidance to arbitrators in such procedures.

To opt in or to opt out?

Regardless of the value of the dispute, the ICC report invites users to opt in to use the EPP where a dispute is relatively self‑contained, involves limited documents or technical issues, and where speed and cost control are important commercial considerations. In these circumstances, the streamlined timetable, reduced evidential steps and ability to proceed with a sole arbitrator can offer a more efficient route to resolution. However, the EPP will not suit every case. Where a dispute is likely to require extensive disclosure, detailed expert evidence, or coordination between multiple parties or jurisdictions, the compressed structure may offer too little flexibility. In those situations, opting out can provide the additional procedural flexibility and time needed to manage complexity effectively. If using EPP, the key is to take a proactive approach from the outset, particularly regarding the choice of the arbitrator(s), using the case management conference to pinpoint factual disputes, narrow issues capable of agreement and coordinate any expert input, as well as make full use of the streamlined procedural tools, including limiting submissions and deciding whether the case requires a hearing. 

Conclusion 

For organisations dealing with lower‑value or time‑sensitive disputes, the EPP provides a robust means of achieving faster outcomes with fewer procedural steps and more predictable costs. The data shows that the framework is being used widely, that awards are generally issued on time, and that tribunals are applying streamlined processes in a consistent way. While tribunal appointment timings still need refinement, early planning and disciplined case management can help businesses realise the full benefit of the expedited timetable. For many disputes, the EPP offers a practical and efficient alternative to a full arbitration process. If you would like to discuss any of these points further, please feel free to get in touch.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.