Construction Disputes: Is expedited dispute resolution the future?

Introduction

Construction projects are often technically complex, multi-party, multi-contract and high value which can mean there is more scope for errors, delays and increased costs, leading to significant disputes as to causation and responsibility. In its 2024 report, the ICC reported that the construction/engineering and energy sectors traditionally generate the largest number of ICC cases, and represented 44% of all new cases registered.¹ It is common for these disputes to necessitate long and costly court or arbitral proceedings in order to reach a resolution. Indeed, most court and arbitration proceedings take several years to reach a conclusion.

However, there are also a large number of smaller disputes on construction projects, which require resolution quickly and efficiently, without the desire (or, indeed, ability) to incur significant costs and time, and to ensure that cash is released to the supply chain. The cost of arbitrating or litigating these cases is often disproportionate to their value, meaning that parties need to turn to short-form methods of dispute resolution.

The desire for short-form dispute resolution methods for construction disputes is not new. Construction adjudication has been available in many common law jurisdictions for decades, and this has been followed by the introduction of expedited arbitration procedures by several institutions.

There has, however, been a recent surge in the use of expedited procedures. In the past year, we have seen the introduction of adjudication in Hong Kong; the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) has introduced a new “Streamlined Procedure” (in addition to the existing expedited procedure); and the English Arbitration Act 2025 also introduced a new section to the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) conferring an express power on a tribunal to make an award on a summary basis, meaning that the tribunal will adopt an expedited procedure to determine the issues.

This article summarises the advancement of these processes, and considers what the future holds for construction dispute resolution.

The position in the UK

On projects in England, Wales and Scotland, the majority of construction disputes are resolved through adjudication. This is a short-form process, which results in a determination which is enforceable in the courts.

Parties have the benefit of statutory adjudication for ‘construction contracts’ falling within the remit of Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (the “Construction Act”), save for some limited exceptions (either pursuant to section 104(2) or an express order). The fact that parties can obtain an enforceable determination, is central to the successful proliferation of adjudication, such that most standard forms contain a contractual requirement for disputes to be referred to adjudication as a precursor to litigation or arbitration.

The timeframe for resolution of adjudications is extremely short, with determinations to be issued within 28-42 days (unless extended by agreement between the parties). Adjudications are generally completed on the papers, without evidentiary hearings, and the parties are responsible for their own legal costs. This means that parties can obtain a very short determination of simple issues, particularly in respect of disputes over monthly payment applications.

On the downside, where adjudication applies, there is no limit to the type of dispute which can be referred for determination. This can result in very complex issues – such as final account disputes, which require determination of complex issues of delay – having to be determined in an extremely short period of time.

This can be extremely challenging for parties and adjudicators, and is why adjudication is often referred to as a form of “rough justice”.

What is the approach internationally?

At the moment, few jurisdictions have statutory adjudication which is comparable with the Construction Act. Examples include: Canada, Australia, Ireland, Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong’s Construction Industry Security of Payment Ordinance which came into force in August 2025. The fact that adjudication has recently expanded into Hong Kong is evidence of its success.

Consequently, in most international construction contracts, parties tend to rely upon arbitration as a means to finally resolve a dispute, which is favoured for its efficiency, confidentiality and enforceability when compared to litigation.

Whilst arbitration is popular, it has received some industry criticism over the years for sometimes becoming as lengthy and expensive as litigation, diminishing its primary advantage of efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

This has led to a number of globally recognised arbitral institutions offering an expedited and streamlined process (shorter timelines, fewer procedural steps, and simplified rules) to achieve a quicker resolution – this is particularly useful for those smaller claims when the parties involved require a prompt decision to avoid prolonged uncertainty and costs associated with lengthy litigation.

Expedited arbitration procedures

The use of expedited arbitration is not a new concept:

• The SIAC has had an expedited arbitration process for disputes under SGD6m since 2010 (USD$4.7m) and, due to its popularity, the criteria has recently been revised so it is accessible for disputes between SGD1m and SGD10m at the time of application. There have been more than 1000 expedited cases registered since its introduction.² In its 2025 update, SIAC further introduced a “Streamlined Procedure”, which applies to disputes under SGD1m (USD$770k), with an award to be made within 3 months of the constitution of the tribunal.
• The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) introduced an expedited procedure in 2013. Currently, the threshold is set at less than HK$25m (USD$3.2m)³ but this can be adjusted from time to time by the HKIAC depending on the date the Notice of Arbitration is submitted.
• In March 2017, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) launched its expedited procedure provisions which aimed to shorten the length of arbitration proceedings. It applies  automatically to all arbitrations referred further to the ICC Rules that are below a certain value (between US$2m and US$3m depending on when the arbitration agreement was concluded). If the value of the dispute is higher, parties may opt-in to the provisions.

The introduction of the ICC expedited procedure has been a success. There have been 865 cases registered since its inception, with more than half of these (461) resulting in a final award.⁴ 189 and 152 expedited cases were registered in 2023 and 2024, which suggests an upward trend in popularity.⁵ By comparison, the ICC registered a total of 841 cases overall in 2024, with the average amount in dispute being US$130m.⁶

While there is no expedited procedure in the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules, there are other provisions that enable the proceedings to be expedited, including emergency formation of the tribunal in cases of exceptional urgency and a party may also apply to have a claim, defence or counterclaim determined early where it is inadmissible or manifestly without merit.⁷ This is similar to a strike out application available in the English courts. There seems to be limited take up on this option however: in 2024, the LCIA reported that there 16 applications for early determination, of which one was granted.⁸

In England and Wales, the changes introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025 to the AA 1996 which apply to arbitrations seated in London, included a new section 39A that allows a tribunal to make an award on a summary basis, similar to summary judgment in the courts, where arbitrators can make early decisions on disputes if a party has "no real prospect of success". This means that the tribunal will adopt an expedited procedure to determine the relevant issues but only after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity to make representations on procedure (sections 39A(2) and 39(3), AA 1996).

This indicates both that there is a clear need and appetite for the full arbitration process (used in high value and complex disputes) to co-exist with a short-form process for smaller disputes. Based on the positive outcomes and growing demand for faster arbitration, ICC is considering expanding its provisions, such as by further increasing the threshold, while ensuring that key benefits like speed, cost-effectiveness, and enforceability are preserved.

Potential issues

Given that the expedited arbitration process can potentially override the parties prior agreement as to the conduct of the arbitration, the question arises as to whether this goes against the principle of party autonomy? The ICC reported that 97% of new cases in 2024 were a result of the automatic opt-in process; whereas only 5 were by party agreement.⁹

The appointment of a sole arbitrator may be contrary to what the parties had agreed and could lead to suggestions of partiality or unfairness. These concerns manifested in 2017, when the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate Court refused to enforce a SIAC award made under the expedited procedure, on the basis that SIAC appointed a sole arbitrator, when the arbitration agreement provided for a three-person tribunal.¹⁰

However, this case has not been adopted in other jurisdictions. In 2022, the Supreme Court of Thailand rejected an application to set aside an award on similar grounds; and in BXS v BXT [2019] SGHC(I) 10, the Singapore Internation Commercial Court determined that an agreement to apply the SIAC Rules includes an agreement to submit to expedited arbitration procedure.

The ICC has sought to include some measures to guard against these issues, with flexibility in the process for a panel to be appointed (or for parties to opt out) where it is appropriate in the circumstances.

Both the HKIAC and SIAC have an “opt-in” process, which requires the parties to apply for permission to apply the expedited procedure and, absent agreement between the parties, the applicant must demonstrate why the expedited procedure should be adopted. Furthermore, the HKIAC rules provide that, where the arbitration agreement provides for three arbitrators, references shall only be made to a sole arbitrator with the parties’ agreement.

Another potential issue is whether it is appropriate to judge the application of the expedited procedure on value alone, as opposed to complexity. Low value does not necessarily mean simple – often the case on large, multi-party construction or infrastructure disputes.

The HKIAC Rules 2024 include a safeguard in this respect, which empowers the HKIAC to decide that the expedited procedure shall no longer apply if “any new circumstances” arise.¹¹ This power is enacted upon request of any parties or the arbitral tribunal, and after consulting with the parties and any confirmed or appointed arbitrators.

Perhaps one solution is to draft bespoke arbitration provisions that opt in to the relevant expedited process in certain circumstances, and depending on the nature and complexity of the dispute. There is also the option for parties to include dispute escalation or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provisions in their construction contracts and this should be a key commercial consideration during negotiations (indeed, ADR is a mandatory step in some jurisdictions). While not providing a binding result (unless the parties agree a written settlement), ADR can certainly help to narrow issues and preserve relationships.

Concluding thoughts

Expedited arbitration is clearly increasing in popularity and scope. It should be particularly advantageous in the international construction arena for those smaller supply chain disputes, where prompt resolution and cost-effectiveness are highly valued. There are some slight divergent approaches between the rules of different arbitral institutions and the applicable law of the seats, and these seem set to continue as institutions further develop their own concepts of expedition.

What is key is that, during contract negotiations, parties give careful thought to how they want any disputes to be dealt with and include dispute resolution mechanisms which are correctly suited to the size and nature of any potential disputes, perhaps opting into an expedited arbitration process for certain claims or in certain circumstances.

It is also important to note that, while claim value is an important factor when considering a cost-effective dispute resolution process, the complexity of the case is also paramount. There will remain claims which exceed the threshold of the procedures set out above, but which may be suited to an expedited process. Even where the expedited process does not apply, most arbitration rules provide for procedural flexibility which should encourage parties to agree timetables which allow for determinations to be made on an expedited and cost-effective basis.

A short form version of this article has been published on PLC: read here

---

[1] ICC Dispute Resolution 2024 Statistics
[2] SIAC Rules 2025 - Singapore International Arbitration Centre
[3] Expedited HKIAC Arbitration
[4] ICC Dispute Resolution 2024 Statistics
[5] ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics: 2023 - ICC - International Chamber of Commerce; Unveiled: 2024 ICC Arbitration and ADR preliminary statistics - ICC - International Chamber of Commerce.
[6] ICC Dispute Resolution 2024 Statistics
[7] LCIA Rules, Article 22(viii)
[8] LCIA 2024 Report
[9] ICC International Court of Arbitration
[10] Noble Resources International Pte. Ltd v. Shanghai Good Credit International Trade Co., Ltd. (2016) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 1.
[11] 2024 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, Article 42.3