由于涉及跨司法管辖区（multi-jurisdictional）当事人的跨境合同（cross-border contracts）成为常态，越来越多的参与者进入竞技场（arena），为选择通过国际仲裁解决争端的当事人提供法律服务。例如，2016年成立的孟买国际仲裁中心，以满足印度日益增长的市场需求，也是政府努力推动该国成为区域争端解决中心的一部分。

除地理因素外，仲裁程序的费用和时长是决定当事人选择仲裁机构的关键因素。 这项研究比较了四家仲裁机构最近进行的费用和仲裁时长研究，以确定谁更胜一筹。

香港国际仲裁中心（“HKIAC”）最近公布由香港国际仲裁中心管理案件的费用及仲裁时长的最新报告。数据包括根据2013年HKIAC管理仲裁规则管理的62项仲裁，其最终裁决于2013年11月1日至2017年12月31日期间发布。

香港国际仲裁中心研究的主要统计数据：

1.香港国际仲裁中心的平均仲裁费用为117,045美元，仲裁费用的中位数为62,537美元。

2.香港国际仲裁中心仲裁的平均时长为16.2个月，时长中位数为14.3个月。

香港国际仲裁中心的独特之处在于向当事人提供按小时收费或参照从价收费（ad valorem system）（即根据争议的价值）支付仲裁庭费用的选择权。有趣的是，香港国际仲裁中心的研究显示，尽管“绝大多数香港国际仲裁中心仲裁庭是按小时收费”，但从价制度下的仲裁费用更便宜。

伦敦国际仲裁中心研究报告（The LCIA Study）

2017年10月，伦敦国际仲裁中心（“LCIA”）也更新了关于LCIA管理案件的费用和仲裁时长的报告。该数据包括根据LCIA规则管理的224项仲裁，其最终裁决于2013年1月1日至2016年12月31日期间达成。

来自LCIA研究的显著统计数据如下：

1. LCIA仲裁费用的中位数为97,000美元。

2. LCIA仲裁时长的中位数为16个月。

LCIA研究还比较了其他四家仲裁机构仲裁费用的中位数，即：

1.香港国际仲裁中心;

2.国际商会（“ICC”）;

3.斯德哥尔摩商会仲裁院（“SCC”）; 和

4.新加坡国际仲裁中心（“SIAC”）。

根据这些统计数据，LCIA研究报告得出的结论是，LCIA的仲裁费用中位数最低，其中仲裁庭费用和行政管理费用最低。 SCC的仲裁费用第二低，其次是SIAC。 HKIAC 和ICC 的费用同样昂贵，尽管HKIAC 的统计数据是基于对最高仲裁费用的估计，而ICC 的统计数据是基于平均数。

斯德哥尔摩商会仲裁院研究报告（The SCC Study）

此前，SCC和SIAC已发布类似报告。 SCC最新的费用和仲裁时长报告于2016年2月发布。SCC根据2010年SCC仲裁规则管理的80个案例在2007年至2014年间发布了裁决。

SCC研究报告的主要统计数据包括：

1.独任仲裁员案件和三名仲裁员案件的SCC仲裁费用中位数分别为33,096欧元和167,021欧元。

2. SCC仲裁时长的中位数为13.5个月。

SIAC于2016年10月发布了费用和仲裁时长研究报告。 根据新加坡国际仲裁中心2013年仲裁规则，SIAC于2013年4月1日至2016年7月31日期间公布98个案件的裁决。

1. SIAC仲裁的平均仲裁费用为80,337美元，总费用中位数为29,567美元。

2. SIAC仲裁的平均时长为13.8个月，中位数期限为11.7个月。

比较仲裁机构的费用与仲裁时长研究报告

LCIA和SCC研究报告并没有公布有关仲裁时长和费用的平均数字，并指出有一些异常值（outliers）偏离了数据。

对于独任仲裁员和三名仲裁员案件，SIAC仍然是最具成本竞争力的选择。尤其是三人仲裁员案件，SIAC仍然比LCIA和SCC便宜得多，其费用延伸至六位数字。

值得注意的是，来自LCIA研究报告的SIAC仲裁评估费用与SIAC研究的统计数据存在显着差异。SIAC仲裁与其他仲裁机构相比效率最高 。

然而，SIAC和SCC研究报告于2016年发布，而HKIAC和LCIA研究则基于更新的统计数据。

仲裁机构使用不同的制度来计算其仲裁费用。 LCIA使用小时收费制度。相反，SIAC和SCC采用从价制度，该制度基于索赔的价值来确定仲裁的费用，并在该机构的费用范围规定的限额内。 如上所述，HKIAC允许各方选择按小时付费或按从价制度支付费用，虽然大多数人选择前者。

预测未来的变化（Forecasting Future Changes）

尽管自上述研究报告发布以来，LCIA和HKIAC仲裁机构规则大致保持不变，但SCC规则和SIAC规则引入了新的特征，以促进更有效的仲裁程序。 SCC和SIAC研究报告未考虑新规则的影响。

2017年的SCC规则于2017年1月1日生效。关于仲裁员人数的违约条款（default provision）已由三人仲裁庭变为一人仲裁庭，给予SCC董事会根据争议的复杂程度和价值等其他因素决定仲裁员人数的灵活性。 2017年SCC规则第39条还允许当事人要求仲裁庭通过简易程序决定某些事实或法律问题，只要符合相关要求。

同样，SIAC仲裁规则第6版仅于2016年8月1日生效。这些规则引入了早期解雇规则（dismissal rules），以及与紧急仲裁员和快速程序（Expedited Procedure）相关的增强规定，这些规定有望提高SIAC仲裁的效率。

因此，与LCIA和HKIAC仲裁相比，SIAC和SCC仲裁的中位期限已经较短，可能会有所改善。

根据对四项研究报告的比较，仲裁程序的费用和时长由SIAC管理时显然最具吸引。

虽然其他因素如各仲裁庭之间的争议规模可能解释这种差异，但分析报告为各方提供了一个更好的使用不同仲裁机构时可能发生的时长和费用的观点。

随着仲裁规则的修改，反映了不断变化的商业现实 - 就像SCC和SIAC的情况一样 - 应该密切监控这些修改对仲裁费用和时长的影响。

Costs and Duration: A Comparison of the HKIAC,LCIA, SCC and SIAC Studies

Introduction

As cross-border contracts involving multi-jurisdictional parties become thenorm, more players have entered the arena to offer legal services for partiesopting to resolve their disputes by way of international arbitration. TheMumbai Centre for International Arbitration, for instance, was set up asrecently as 2016 to cater to India’s growing market and is part of thegovernment’s efforts to promote the country as a regional dispute resolutioncentre.

Apart from geography, the costs and duration of arbitral proceedings arekey factors that determine parties’ choice of arbitral institution. This studycompares the recent cost and duration studies conducted by four arbitralinstitutions to see who comes out trumps.

The HKIAC Study

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) recentlyreleased an updated report on the costs and duration of cases administered by HKIAC (the “HKIACStudy”). The data set included 62 arbitrations administered under the 2013HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules where the final award was issued between 1November 2013 and 31 December 2017.

Key statistics from the HKIAC Study:

1.  The mean arbitrationcosts of an HKIAC arbitration is USD 117,045, whereas the medianarbitration costs is USD 62,537.

2.  The mean duration ofan HKIAC arbitration is 16.2 months, while the median duration is 14.3months.

HKIAC is unique in offering parties an option of paying the arbitraltribunals’ fees by an hourly rate or by reference to an ad valoremsystem (i.e. based on the value of the dispute). Interestingly, the HKIAC Studyreveals that the costs of arbitration are cheaper under the ad valoremsystem even though “[t]he vast majority of HKIAC tribunals are paid on anhourly rate basis”.

The LCIA Study

In October 2017, the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”)also updatedtheir report on the costs andduration of cases administered by LCIA (the “LCIA Study”). The data setincluded 224 arbitrations administered under the LCIA Rules that reached afinal award between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2016.

Notable statistics from the LCIA Study are as follows:

1.  The medianarbitration costs of an LCIA arbitration is USD 97,000.

2.  The median durationof an LCIA arbitration is 16 months. 

The LCIA Study also compared the median costs of arbitrations commencedunder four other arbitral institutions, namely:

1.  the HKIAC;

2.  the InternationalChamber of Commerce (“ICC”);

3.  the Stockholm Chamberof Commerce (“SCC”); and

4.  the SingaporeInternational Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”).

Based on thesestatistics, the LCIA Study concluded that LCIA had the lowest medianarbitration costs, with the lowest tribunal fees and administrative charges.SCC had the second lowest arbitration costs, followed by SIAC. HKIAC and ICCwere equally expensive, although the HKIAC statistics were based on an estimateof the maximum arbitration costs while the ICC statistics were based on anaverage.

The SCC Study

Previously, the SCC and SIAC had released similar reports. The SCC’s latestreport on costs and duration was released in February 2016(the “SCC Study”). It considered 80 cases administered by the SCC underthe 2010 SCC Arbitration Rules where an award had been issued between 2007 and2014.

Key statistics from the SCC Study include:

1.  The medianarbitration costs of an SCC arbitration for sole-arbitrator cases andthree-arbitrator cases is EUR 33,096 and EUR 167,021respectively.

2.  The median durationof an SCC arbitration is 13.5 months.

The SIAC Study

SIAC released its costs andduration study in October 2016 (the“SIAC Study”). It considered 98 cases administered by the SIAC under the2013 Arbitration Rules of the SIAC, where the award had been issued between 1April 2013 to 31 July 2016.

Key statistics from the SIAC Study:

1.  The mean arbitrationcosts of an SIAC arbitration is USD 80,337, whereas the median totalcosts is USD 29,567.

2.  The mean duration ofan SIAC arbitration is 13.8 months, while the median duration is 11.7months.

Comparing the Cost and Duration Studies of the Arbitral Institutions

The LCIA and SCC Studies did not release mean figures for duration andcosts, noting that there were several outliers which skewed the data.

As evident from Table 1:

·        SIAC remains the mostcost-competitive option for both sole-arbitrator and three-arbitrator cases.For three-arbitrator cases in particular, SIAC remains significantly cheaperthan LCIA and SCC where the costs extend to six-digit figures.

·        Notably, there is asignificant disparity between the estimated cost of an SIAC arbitration fromthe LCIA Study and the statistics from the SIAC Study.

From Table 2:

Based on the data, SIAC arbitrations are the most efficient in comparisonto the other arbitral institutions.

However, the SIAC and SCC Studies were released in 2016, while the HKIACand LCIA Studies are based on more recent statistics.

• Methodology

• The arbitralinstitutions use different systems to compute their arbitration costs. The LCIAuses an hourly rate system. In contrast, the SIAC and SCC adopt the advalorem system, which fixes the costs of an arbitration on the value of aclaim and within limits specified by the institution’s costs scales. Asmentioned, HKIAC allows parties the option between paying the fees by an hourlyrate or the ad valorem system, although most parties choose the former.

• Forecasting FutureChanges

• While the LCIA andHKIAC arbitral institutional rules remain largely unchanged since thepublication of the above studies, the SCC Rules and SIAC Rules have introducednew features with a view to facilitating a more efficient arbitration process.The impact of the new rules would not have been taken into account in the SCCand SIAC studies.

• The 2017 SCC Rulesonly entered into force on 1 January 2017. The default provision on the numberof arbitrators was changed from a three-arbitrator tribunal to one that givesthe SCC board flexibility to decide on the number of arbitrators based oncomplexity, value in dispute and other circumstances. Article 39 of the 2017SCC Rules also allows parties to make requests for the tribunal to decidecertain issues of fact or law by way of summary procedure, if the relevantrequirements are met.

• Similarly, the 6thedition of the SIAC’s Arbitration Rules only came into effect on 1 August 2016.These rules introduced early dismissal rules and enhanced provisions relatingto Emergency Arbitrator and Expedited Procedure, which are expected to improvethe efficiency of SIAC arbitrations.

• As such, the medianduration of SIAC and SCC arbitrations, which are already shorter in comparisonto LCIA and HKIAC arbitrations, are likely to improve.

Key Takeaways

·        Based on a comparisonof the four studies, the costs and duration of arbitral proceedings areostensibly most attractive when administered by SIAC.

·        While other factorssuch as the scale of disputes before the respective tribunals may explain thisdifference, the analysis provides parties with a better idea of the time andexpense that are likely to be incurred when using different arbitralinstitutions.

·        With arbitral rulesbeing amended to reflect evolving commercial realities – as is the case withthe SCC and SIAC – the effect such amendments can have on the costs andduration of arbitrations should be closely monitored.

*This article is co-written by Wei Ming Tan (CMS Holborn Asia), ShriramJayakumar and Jolyn Khoo (students at Singapore Management University [“SMU”])as part of a joint initiative by CMS Holborn Asia and the Society ofInternational Law (Singapore) based at SMU’s School of Law.