- 20-Sep-2025
- public international law
In arbitration, the flexibility to set time limits for various stages of the proceedings is one of the key advantages that parties have compared to traditional court proceedings. While arbitration rules or national laws often impose default time limits, parties are generally free to agree on their own time frames for submitting documents, holding hearings, and issuing awards. Understanding how these party-agreed timelines interact with default procedural rules is essential for ensuring efficiency and avoiding potential disputes regarding delays.
Arbitration offers parties significant autonomy in structuring the proceedings, including determining time limits. Parties can agree to time frames for each stage of the arbitration process, such as the submission of pleadings, conducting hearings, and the final award issuance. This flexibility allows parties to tailor the process to their specific needs and the complexity of the dispute.
Most arbitration institutions (e.g., ICC, LCIA, SIAC, UNCITRAL) provide default time limits in their arbitration rules. However, parties can agree to modify or waive these time limits within reasonable bounds. For instance:
ICC Rules: The ICC Rules provide a general time frame (typically 6 months) for rendering an award. However, parties can agree to extend or reduce this period if both sides consent, or if the arbitral tribunal finds it justified.
LCIA Rules: Under the LCIA, parties may agree to a faster or slower timeline, subject to the tribunal’s approval, as long as it doesn’t conflict with the essential principles of due process.
UNCITRAL Rules: UNCITRAL provides flexibility without strict deadlines, allowing parties to negotiate their own timelines within the general framework of reasonableness.
The agreed time limits will be enforceable as long as they do not violate mandatory provisions of the applicable arbitration laws or rules.
If the tribunal and parties agree to a specific time frame, the tribunal is generally bound by that agreement unless there are exceptional reasons to extend or modify it (such as complexity of the case or unavailability of parties).
However, if the tribunal considers that the agreed timeline is impractical or detrimental to fairness, it can override the parties’ agreement and set new time limits, subject to the institution’s rules or applicable national arbitration laws.
In addition to procedural time limits, the most critical deadline is the time frame for rendering the award. Although parties may agree to extend this time limit, most rules (such as those of the ICC) require that the final award be rendered within 12 months from the constitution of the tribunal.
If the parties have agreed on a shorter or longer deadline for issuing the award, it is important to ensure that the tribunal adheres to this timeline. If the tribunal fails to issue the award within the agreed time frame without a valid extension, it may result in a challenge or invalidation of the award.
Non-compliance with the agreed time limits may be treated as a breach of the arbitration agreement or contract. The aggrieved party could request an enforcement action in the relevant court or arbitral institution.
If a party fails to meet a time limit (e.g., submitting a response or attending hearings), the tribunal may exercise its discretion to continue with the proceedings, impose penalties, or decide the case based on the available information.
If the award is not issued within the agreed or default time frame, the tribunal may lose jurisdiction over the case, depending on the governing laws or arbitration agreement.
If the parties agree on a time extension or if the tribunal requires more time to deliberate, extensions are typically allowed under the arbitration rules. Extensions should be:
Parties should negotiate and clearly outline time limits in the arbitration clause to avoid uncertainty. This can include specific dates for submissions, hearings, and award issuance.
If the parties anticipate delays, they should request an extension of time well before the original deadline expires. The request should be made in writing, stating the reasons for the extension and agreeing on the new time frame.
It is essential for the parties to track the progress of the arbitration and ensure that the time limits are being adhered to. If there is a significant delay, parties should raise the issue with the tribunal or the administering institution.
If parties cannot agree on time extensions or deadlines, they can seek assistance from the institution administering the arbitration or, in some cases, from national courts.
Clarify Time Limits in the Contract: Ensure that the arbitration clause specifies reasonable and clear time limits for each stage.
Request Time Extensions Early: If delays occur, request an extension well in advance of the deadline.
Seek Tribunal Guidance: If disagreements arise over time limits, seek the tribunal’s guidance or the arbitration institution’s intervention.
Monitor the Process: Actively monitor the progress of the arbitration to ensure adherence to deadlines and avoid unnecessary delays.
Company A and Company B enter into an arbitration agreement to resolve a contractual dispute. The agreement specifies that the final award should be rendered within 6 months of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.
Due to the complexity of the dispute, the tribunal requests a 2-month extension to render the final award by July 1. Both parties agree to the extension.
On July 30, the tribunal issues the final award, adhering to the extended timeline.
Discover clear and detailed answers to common questions about public international law. Learn about procedures and more in straightforward language.
