RPC's submissions on the LCIA Rules Revision Consultation

On 11 May 2026, RPC submitted its response to the LCIA’s consultation on revising the LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020 (LCIA Rules). The consultation sought input from the global arbitration and mediation community to support modern and reliable rules for the next decade of international dispute resolution.

Our overarching theme is straightforward: preserve what makes LCIA arbitration attractive (fairness, flexibility, party autonomy and enforceability), while resisting overly prescriptive procedures that risk cost, delay and satellite disputes.

Below is a short summary of RPC’s key recommendations. 

1. Expedited and fast-track procedures

RPC does not support the introduction of default fast-track or highly expedited procedures (including by reference to dispute value). If an expedited procedure is introduced, it should be opt-in by party agreement, or adopted by the tribunal post-constitution after hearing from the parties.

2. Early determination procedures

RPC supports retaining a flexible early determination mechanism under Article 22.1(viii), and cautions against both strict time windows and "permission to apply" gateway requirements. RPC also suggests Article 22.1(viii) may need revision to bring it into line with Section 39A of the Arbitration Act 1996¹.  

3. Emergency arbitration

RPC suggests updating Article 9B to permit ex parte applications in defined circumstances with appropriate safeguards. Current requirements to consult with and notify other parties in practice preclude ex parte relief even where urgency demands it. 

4. Coordination tools for multi-contract and multi-case disputes

RPC considers the composite Request/Response regime under Articles 1.2 and 2.2 are unduly cumbersome and capable of generating confidentiality issues prior to consolidation. RPC suggests simplifying composite filings and invites the LCIA to consider express cross-institution consolidation where parties consent.

5. Third-party funding

 RPC suggests mandatory disclosure of the existence and identity of any third-party funder as soon as practicable, primarily to manage conflicts of interest, using a definition aligned with the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest (i.e. entities with a direct economic interest in the award).

6. Anonymised award publication options

RPC supports the continued publication of anonymised LCIA Court decisions. However, RPC does not support an ICC-style opt-out model for award publication: awards are not binding precedents and routine publication risks undermining confidentiality. No award should be published unless required by law or all parties consent, and then only in fully anonymised form.

7. Costs reform, including optional ad valorem schedules and cost-control tools

RPC is open in principle to optional ad valorem schedules (e.g., for tribunal fees) provided they are non-mandatory, preserve the tribunal/LCIA Court's discretion, and do not increase costs. RPC also encourages the LCIA to endorse practical cost-control tools such as page and time limits where appropriate.

8. ADR integration, including settlement windows and referral mechanisms

 RPC suggests integrating ADR more explicitly through "settlement windows" at sensible points in the case, such as after the Response and following document production. However, proceedings should keep progressing during settlement discussions unless all parties request a stay. 

9. Avoiding overly prescriptive procedures

RPC’s overarching position is to avoid overly prescriptive procedures in certain areas such as AI, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, sustainability, and State/SOE disputes. Instead, we favour one coherent, broadly drafted set of rules where tailoring can be achieved through party agreement and tribunal case management.