The new ICC Rules, which entered into force on 1 June 2026, have introduced a new procedure called the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (“HEAP”).
The core promise of HEAP is that the dispute will be resolved by a final award within three months from the first case management conference. In this respect, HEAP is not merely a shortened version of standard ICC arbitration; rather, it is a distinct expedited arbitration model based on the parties fully developing their case fully from the outset, submitting their evidence at an early stage, and the arbitrator managing the proceedings in a strict and active manner.
The Nature of the Dispute, Not Its Value, Will Be Determinative
HEAP applies only where expressly chosen by the parties and is not tied to any monetary threshold. One of the most notable features of HEAP is that, unlike the Expedited Procedure Provisions, it is not subject to any monetary threshold. This procedure may be applied irrespective of the amount in dispute, but only where all parties have expressly agreed to its application. Accordingly, parties may include HEAP in their arbitration agreement from the outset or agree to its application after a dispute has arisen. HEAP is therefore not an automatically triggered fast-track regime, but rather a distinct procedural option available where the parties have expressly opted in.
HEAP is a suitable option for disputes of relatively low complexity. The decisive factor in opting for the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions will be the nature and complexity of the dispute, rather than its monetary value. Accordingly, disputes that are low in value but high in complexity will not be suited to this procedure, while disputes that are high in value but low in complexity may be resolved under HEAP.
HEAP may be particularly useful in disputes where the factual background is limited, the evidentiary record is not extensive, the legal debate is concentrated on a specific issue, and the parties need a swift final award. By contrast, HEAP may not be suitable for disputes involving multiple parties or multiple contracts, or for cases where the efficient resolution of the dispute would require joinder, consolidation, extensive document production, written witness or expert evidence, hearings, or examination of witnesses or experts.
Consistent with this approach, the joinder of additional parties or the consolidation of separate arbitrations is not possible under HEAP. In addition, if it becomes apparent during the proceedings that HEAP is not appropriate for the case, its application may be terminated by agreement of the parties or by a decision of the ICC Court. In such case, the proceedings may continue, depending on the circumstances, under the Expedited Procedure Provisions or under the ICC Rules generally.
Key Principles Under the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions
Disputes under HEAP will be decided by a sole arbitrator. This choice is directly linked to the new procedure’s objective of speed. Since constituting a three-member arbitral tribunal and bringing the proceedings to a close within a period as short as three months would be difficult in practice, HEAP is built on a sole-arbitrator structure. If the parties fail to agree on the sole arbitrator within 20 days, the arbitrator will be appointed by the ICC Court as promptly as possible. The aim is to prevent delays relating to the selection of the arbitrator at the very outset of the proceedings.
Claims and defences must be set out in full at the outset of the proceedings. HEAP requires the parties to present their claims and defences as fully as possible at an early stage of the proceedings. In this respect, the claimant will submit its Statement of Claim together with the Request for Arbitration, while the respondent is to submit its Statement of Defence together with the Answer and any Counterclaims within 30 days of receipt of the Request for Arbitration. The parties are also expected, to the extent possible, to submit the evidence on which they rely in their initial submissions. In this sense, HEAP is not merely an arbitration procedure with shortened time limits; it introduces a concentrated model that requires the parties to fully develop their case from the outset.
The arbitrator is granted broad case management powers. Under HEAP, the arbitrator has broad case management powers to ensure that the proceedings are conducted swiftly and efficiently. After consulting the parties, the arbitrator may limit the number, scope and length of further submissions, decide not to allow document production or may restrict written witness and expert evidence. The arbitrator may also, where appropriate, decide the dispute without a hearing.
A three-month time limit is set for the final award. The most important innovation introduced by HEAP is the three-month time limit for the final award. Pursuant to Article 7 of Appendix VI, the arbitrator is required to render the final award within three months from the first case management conference — including the time for scrutiny by the ICC Court and notification to the parties. This time limit may be extended by the President of the ICC Court upon the arbitrator’s reasoned request or where otherwise considered necessary.
The parties may agree on an award without reasons. Another notable feature of HEAP is that the parties may agree on an award without reasons. While awards are, as a rule, expected to be reasoned, the arbitrator may render an award without reasons where the parties have so agreed. That said, it should be borne in mind that unreasoned awards may give rise to difficulties in certain legal systems at the set-aside or enforcement stage. Therefore, the choice to dispense with reasons should be assessed not only from the perspective of speed, but also in light of the enforceability of the award and the mandatory rules of the law of the seat of arbitration.
Practical Implications
HEAP stands out as a new chapter in the pursuit of speed and procedural economy in ICC arbitration. This procedure will allow parties to obtain a final award in a considerably shorter time than under standard arbitration, particularly in disputes that are limited in scope, technical in nature, or otherwise require a rapid decision. Where the parties opt for HEAP in respect of disputes suitable for this procedure, they may avoid lengthy proceedings and obtain satisfactory awards within a notably short timeframe.