The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules: A Singapore perspective

Farewell to mandatory Terms of Reference

The most significant structural change is the removal of the mandatory Terms of Reference. Long regarded as a distinguishing feature of ICC arbitration, the Terms of Reference had in practice become a procedural formality of diminishing utility. Their original function of confirming consent to arbitrate had largely been overtaken by modern arbitration legislation, including Singapore's International Arbitration Act 1994. The ICC's own data bears this out: of over 1,000 cases administered under the Expedited Procedure Provisions, where Terms of Reference were already optional, fewer than 25 tribunals elected to draw them up.

This is a welcome development. Tribunals retain the discretion to establish Terms of Reference where appropriate, but the default position now places greater emphasis on the Case Management Conference, which must be held within 30 days of file transmission. Critically, the CMC becomes the cut off point after which no party may introduce new claims without tribunal authorisation. This places a premium on early case preparation; parties and counsel must therefore ensure that the Request for Arbitration and Answer articulate claims "as fully and as comprehensively as possible" from the outset.

The removal also affects the time limit for rendering awards. The longstanding six month default from the Terms of Reference has been replaced by a flexible regime under which the President of the ICC Court fixes the deadline by reference to the procedural timetable. In practice, this is a sensible codification of what already occurred, given that the six month deadline was routinely exceeded.

A New Tier: The Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure

Among the more notable innovations is the introduction of the Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure, or HEAP, set out in Appendix VI. Unlike the existing Expedited Procedure Provisions, HEAP operates on a strictly opt-in basis with no threshold amount. It requires a final award within three months of the initial CMC and mandates that parties front load their submissions and evidence: a Statement of Claim must accompany the Request, and a Statement of Defence must accompany the Answer.

HEAP is best suited to less complex commercial disputes or discrete issues requiring swift resolution. It is not intended for procedurally complex matters - even joinder and consolidation options are excluded. Parties may also agree to an award without reasons, though counsel should carefully consider the enforcement implications. Article 31(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law (as adopted in the First Schedule to the International Arbitration Act 1994) requires awards to state the reasons on which they are based, unless the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given. Where parties opt into HEAP and agree to dispense with reasons, the award should be valid under Singapore law. However, the absence of reasons could create difficulties in jurisdictions where reasoned awards are a precondition for enforcement, and the ICC itself has cautioned parties to consider this.

HEAP bears clear similarities to SIAC's Streamlined Procedure. The competitive dynamic between the two institutions should ultimately benefit users, particularly in Singapore, where speed and cost efficiency are increasingly determinative of institutional choice.

Separately, the Expedited Procedure Provisions (“EPP”) threshold has been raised to USD 4 million, broadening the range of disputes eligible for automatic expedited treatment. Given that over 40% of ICC cases in 2025 fell below this threshold, this adjustment is commercially significant.

Enhanced emergency arbitration and ex parte relief

The 2026 Rules expand the emergency arbitrator framework in two material respects. First, the provisions now permit applications against non-signatories where the President is satisfied, on a prima facie basis, that a binding arbitration agreement may exist. This reflects the realities of modern commercial transactions involving complex corporate structures. Second, and more boldly, the Rules introduce preliminary orders on an ex parte basis within emergency arbitrator proceedings, directed at preventing a party from frustrating the purpose of the application. Procedural safeguards apply: the other party must be notified immediately and afforded a reasonable opportunity to present its case, and the emergency arbitrator retains the power to modify or revoke the order.

The introduction of ex parte relief is a significant step that brings ICC emergency arbitration closer to the interim relief available before national courts. For Singapore-seated arbitrations, this development complements the existing framework under Section 12A of the International Arbitration Act, which empowers tribunals to grant interim measures. Practitioners should, however, remain attentive to the enforceability of such orders in practice, particularly in jurisdictions that do not recognise emergency arbitrator decisions.

Early determination and other changes

Article 30 now expressly codifies the power of tribunals to determine, at an early stage, claims or defences that are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. While this had previously been addressed in the Note to Parties, its elevation to the Rules proper provides greater certainty and may encourage more frequent use of summary disposal mechanisms.

Other changes include enhanced arbitrator disclosure obligations, with parties now required to submit lists of persons and entities for arbitrator consideration; express provisions on tribunal secretaries; electronic service of documents as the default; and a revised fee schedule reducing costs for arbitrations below USD 10 million.

Concluding observations

The 2026 ICC Rules represent a purposeful modernisation that aligns the ICC framework more closely with the procedural expectations of users in major arbitration seats, including Singapore. The removal of mandatory Terms of Reference, the introduction of HEAP, and the expanded emergency arbitration provisions collectively signal an institution that is responsive to competitive pressure from SIAC and other leading institutions. For Singapore-based practitioners, the practical impact will depend on how tribunals exercise the expanded procedural tools now available. The direction of travel, however, is clear: towards greater efficiency, front loaded case preparation, and a broader menu of procedural options calibrated to the nature and complexity of each dispute.

Authored by Rob Palmer and Cosima Wimmers.