Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

In arbitration, the allocation of costs and interest rewards efficient behavior and discourages frivolous or unnecessarily protracted proceedings. A principled framework begins with clear statutory or contractual cost regimes, followed by transparent criteria for awarding costs. Arbitrators should explain the rationale for expenses and interest awards, including which party bore the burden of initiating or resisting the claim and how substantially complex issues influenced the duration of the hearing. By laying out these factors, tribunals help ensure predictability, reduce strategic posturing, and support parties in budgeting for potential cost exposure. The overarching aim is to align incentives with substantive outcomes rather than permit tactical cost pushes that confuse merit with expense.

A robust approach to costs starts with default rules that reflect proportionality and reasonableness. Arbitrators can incorporate proportionality checks by assessing whether claimed costs align with the value of the dispute, the complexity of issues, and the conduct of the parties. Where a claim is clearly frivolous, steps should be taken to deprioritize or reduce recovery, while still preserving a fair opportunity for the other side to pursue legitimate arguments. Persistent obstinacy should be discouraged through sanctions or escalating cost orders. Importantly, cost determinations should be grounded in documented records, enabling appellate scrutiny and preventing retroactive reinterpretation after deliberation.

Beyond baseline principles, equitable allocation requires attention to cause and effect within the arbitration process. Arbitrators ought to consider the causal link between a party’s conduct and the costs incurred. For example, if a party delays the proceeding through dilatory tactics, this may warrant a higher portion of costs against that party. Conversely, when a party demonstrates diligence, cooperation, and timely exchanges, cost awards should reflect such conduct. The objective is to reward efficiency, not punitive penalties that threaten access to justice. Consistent with this, interest awards should reflect actual loss due to time delays and the unmistakable impact on the claimant’s position.

Balancing interests also means distinguishing between preliminary and final cost orders. Interim cost decisions can encourage settlement or prompt early resolution where appropriate, while final orders should crystallize the parties’ obligations once the dispute has reached a close. Arbitrators can set out staged cost consequences, linking them to milestones such as filing, answers, document production, and the hearing itself. This staged approach reduces ambiguity and creates incentives for parties to manage resources prudently. Clear labeling of cost categories — solicitor-client costs, arbitrator fees, and technical or expert costs — further supports transparency and enforceability of orders.

A crucial element of fair cost allocation is proportionality to the actual value of the dispute. Arbitrators should consider whether a disproportionate costs regime would deter legitimate disputes or burden weaker parties. When the amount in dispute is modest relative to the potential cost exposure, a more restrained approach to cost recovery may be warranted. Conversely, high-stakes matters with substantial resource use may justify a broader recovery. Policy-oriented guidance should inform these judgments, ensuring consistency across cases. Documented justifications, including calculations and contingencies, protect against later challenges and reinforce the acceptance of cost orders by courts or enforcement bodies.

Additionally, interest on awarded sums should reflect market realities and avoid punitive distortions. Arbitrators can base interest rates on statutory benchmarks or agreed contractual rates, but must adjust for periods of inactivity caused by delays not attributable to the claimant. When delays are party-driven, interests should mirror the harm caused. Special attention should be paid to currency fluctuations in cross-border disputes, ensuring that the awarded interest preserves real value for the prevailing party while remaining fair to the other side. Courts often require precise calculation methods to maintain consistency and compliance with enforceability standards.

To deter frivolous claims, arbitrators should pair cost orders with clear, practical consequences. Sanctions for abuse of process, warrants for cost bearers, and the option to shift certain costs to the losing party are tools that can deter baseless arguments. However, these measures must be proportionate and justified by evidence of misuse. A transparent mechanism for requesting cost relief or compensation encourages parties to prepare thoroughly while avoiding opportunistic behavior. By coupling deterrence with proportionality, tribunals can sustain a healthy balance between access to justice and the integrity of the process.

In addition, tribunals should consider the conduct of the parties during negotiations and settlement discussions. Encouraging early settlement can reduce overall costs, but only if such incentives are credible and not exploited to pressure unfounded concessions. A well-designed framework recognizes genuine settlement efforts and rewards them with cost savings. Documenting these efforts within the award helps ensure that the financial outcomes reflect the collaborative nature of resolution, not merely the procedural hurdles the disputants faced.

The enforceability of cost orders depends on clarity and procedural soundness. Arbitrators should provide boundless explanations for their decisions, including the methodology used to determine applicable costs and interest. The use of standardized cost schedules or fee guidelines can aid consistency, while still allowing flexibility for case-specific adjustments. Where applicable, reference to applicable arbitration rules, national laws, or international conventions ensures that cost orders are easily recognized by courts of enforcement. Clear articulation of what was claimed, what was awarded, and why helps prevent post-award challenges that could undermine the process.

In cross-border matters, harmonization concerns arise. Different legal regimes may treat costs, interest, and frivolous conduct differently, potentially complicating enforcement. Arbitrators should identify and reconcile these differences, offering a principled rationale for applying a chosen regime. Where possible, parties should agree in advance on costs and interest rules, or the tribunal may delegate such determinations to a neutral mechanism designed to reduce forum shopping. Ensuring consistency with international arbitration norms strengthens the legitimacy and enforceability of the outcome across jurisdictions.

Practical guidance for arbitrators also includes maintaining meticulous records. A detailed transcript and documented calculations provide an auditable trail that parties can review and challenge if necessary. The better the record-keeping, the less chance there is for ambiguity or later contestation. Arbitrators should publish the key figures and the decision’s rationale in accessible language, avoiding technical jargon that can obscure understanding. This transparency supports the parties’ confidence in the process and aids future enforcement by providing a clear, reproducible basis for the costs and interest awarded.

Finally, tribunals should be mindful of the broader policy objectives at stake. Equitable cost allocation aligns incentives with efficient dispute resolution and predictable outcomes. It also promotes access to justice by reducing the deterrent effect of expensive procedures. By prioritizing proportionality, transparency, and enforceability, arbitrators reinforce the legitimacy and durability of arbitration as a dispute-resolution mechanism. When parties observe that cost and interest decisions reflect fair treatment and consistent standards, they are more likely to engage in constructive dialogue and accept awards without unnecessary challenge.