Introduction
Since its inception in 2019, London International Disputes Week (‘LIDW’) has grown into one of the world’s foremost forums for the international dispute resolution community. Now entering its sixth year, LIDW 2025 is set to continue this legacy by bringing together more than 8,000 delegates from over 100 countries. The week-long event underscores London’s position as a global hub for arbitration, litigation, and mediation, while showcasing the city’s dedication to diversity, inclusion, and the rule of law.
Theme for 2025: “Innovation in Dispute Resolution: Navigating Global Risks”
A signature event of LIDW, International Arbitration Day, has been reimagined for 2025 with an enhanced multi-jurisdictional approach. This year, the programme integrates not only regional focuses but also sector-specific and practice-driven themes pertinent to London’s standing as a premier arbitration centre.
Maintaining the successful “hub format” introduced in prior editions, the first day’s sessions took place across three prominent host firms.
Keynote Address — Hosted by Linklaters LLP
The day opened with a keynote address by Kevin Nash, Director General of the London Court of International Arbitration (‘LCIA’), setting the tone for the conversations ahead.
Kevin Nash reflected on the evolving role of arbitral institutions amidst growing global complexity, legal scrutiny, and innovation in dispute resolution.
Institutional Arbitration: Rooted in Tradition, Evolving for the Future
Mr. Nash framed his address as a thought exercise, speaking from personal experience rather than formal institutional policy. Drawing on his deep professional background, including extensive work in the Asia-Pacific region, Mr. Nash emphasised the unique vantage point that arbitral institutions hold in today’s dispute resolution ecosystem.
He described these institutions as “petri dishes for innovation,” playing a central role in shaping modern practices in arbitration and alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’). Institutions, he argued, must now be more than mere administrative stewards. Instead, they are required to actively rethink and reshape the frameworks for efficient and fair dispute resolution.
London as a Global Dispute Resolution Hub
Mr. Nash praised London’s arbitration community, highlighting both its depth of talent and recent legislative reforms to the English Arbitration Act. These included practical updates such as setting a default governing law for arbitration agreements, clarifying arbitrators’ duty of disclosure, granting emergency arbitrators statutory footing, and reaffirming arbitral immunity.
He also welcomed the findings of the recent Queen Mary University of London survey, which reaffirmed London’s and the LCIA’s global standing. The LCIA ranked highly across most jurisdictions, with notable room for growth in the Asia-Pacific region, a gap Nash hopes to close, given his personal and professional ties to that part of the world.
Mr. Nash shared recent figures estimating that London sees approximately 5,000 domestic and international arbitrations annually, contributing an estimated £2.5 billion to the UK economy, likely a conservative figure. Including all forms of ADR, the number of civil disputes resolved may approach 30,000 per year.
The Case for Institutional Arbitration
Turning to the comparative merits of institutional versus ad hoc arbitration, Mr. Nash made the case that, all else being equal, institutional arbitration is typically faster and more cost-effective. He noted that while ad hoc arbitration may work well in jurisdictions with strong legal infrastructure, institutions provide an essential regulatory framework when cases go off track.
For newer users of arbitration, Mr. Nash emphasised that institutions must “audition” themselves, clearly demonstrating the core values that draw parties to arbitration: speed, flexibility, party autonomy, confidentiality, and enforceability under the New York Convention.
He also encouraged the arbitration community not to be “purists.” With growing use of tiered clauses (e.g., mediation—arbitration or negotiation—arbitration), Mr. Nash stressed the importance of adapting processes to suit the dispute rather than forcing all matters through a single procedural lens.
Expedited Procedures and the “Need for Speed”
One of the central themes of Mr. Nash’s speech was the role of institutions in procedural innovation, especially expedited procedures. He reviewed various institutional models: some rely on separate expedited rules agreed at the drafting stage; others use automatic applications based on the claim amount; and some operate on a by-application basis.
Each model, Mr. Nash explained, has trade-offs. In the application model, for instance, a claimant may assert simplicity, while a respondent resists by claiming complexity, leaving the institution to make an early procedural determination. Automatic application models can face difficulties when the claim value does not accurately reflect case complexity.
Interestingly, Mr. Nash pointed out that the LCIA is one of the few leading institutions without a formal expedited procedure yet consistently ranks as one of the most efficient forums for arbitration. He attributed this to the LCIA’s strong case management philosophy, which emphasizes compact timelines and active tribunal oversight.
Barriers to Entry and Emergency Arbitration
Mr. Nash also raised the important question of accessibility, emphasising that institutions must be as adept at handling a £5,000 dispute as a £5 billion one. He reiterated the LCIA’s commitment to affordability and flexibility.
Emergency arbitration, Mr. Nash, argued, has been a positive development in arbitration, offering vital interim relief while minimizing court involvement.
Reimagining the Role of Institutions
Mr. Nash highlighted the continued value that parties place on independence, predictability, and procedural rigor. Yet institutions must also be willing to evolve, embracing innovation not as a trend, but as a necessity in a world of accelerated geopolitical risk and legal fragmentation.
He previewed further discussion under several forward-looking themes:
- The case for structure in an unstructured world
- Institutional arbitration vs. ad hoc arbitration
- Procedural innovation and the “need for speed”
- Evolution in appointments and EDI (Equity, Diversity & Inclusion)
- Transparency vs. confidentiality
-
Reimagining institutional rules and biases
With both humility and conviction, Mr. Nash called on arbitral institutions to lead the next era of dispute resolution by blending tradition with innovation, scale with accessibility, and structure with flexibility.
Following his initial reflections on procedural innovation and the evolving expectations of users, Kevin Nash transitioned into a more detailed and nuanced exploration of the practical workings of arbitration institutions, with particular emphasis on the innovative approaches of the LCIA.
Emergency Arbitration and Expedited Tribunal Formation
Mr. Nash addressed the tension between emergency arbitration and the need for rapid constitution of the tribunal, highlighting a key innovation of the LCIA: its expedited formation of the arbitral tribunal. He noted that many legal frameworks, including the English Arbitration Act and the UNCITRAL Model Law, trigger external court involvement only when a tribunal or institution is “unable to act effectively.” This phrasing, he observed, places pressure on parties to rely on institutional procedures before seeking judicial intervention.
At the LCIA, expedited formation of the tribunal serves as a pragmatic alternative to emergency arbitration, reducing the need for parallel procedures. Mr. Nash posed a provocative question he had often asked in academic settings: if a sole arbitrator can be appointed quickly and the case does not require true urgency, is emergency arbitration even necessary? This, he said, reflects a broader evolution in institutional strategy—favoring early engagement and efficiency over redundant procedural layers.
He credited emergency arbitration with transforming the procedural landscape of international arbitration but acknowledged that the LCIA’s ability to swiftly form tribunals often obviates the need for it. Nevertheless, he reaffirmed the importance of emergency arbitration as a statutory tool and praised recent updates to the English Arbitration Act that enshrine both emergency relief and summary disposal into law, providing tribunals with additional authority and legitimacy.
Procedural Innovation and Courage in Case Management
Expanding on procedural reform, Mr. Nash revisited the core values of arbitration: efficiency, autonomy, flexibility, and enforceability. He stressed the need for institutions to be “precise, thoughtful, timely, and brave.” Bravery, he explained, is the institutional willingness to make decisions that may later be scrutinised or challenged, but are made in good faith, grounded in fairness, and in service of the arbitration process.
He recalled personal experiences involving challenges to arbitrators, potential set-aside risks, and high-stakes decisions, observing that “correctness” is a guiding principle. Institutions must stand by decisions they believe are procedurally sound, even amid uncertainty.
Arbitrator Appointment: From Process to Philosophy
Turning to arbitrator appointments, Mr. Nash noted that the method of appointment can be as critical as the quality of the arbitrator. While party autonomy remains paramount, institutions must be prepared to step in when parties cannot agree, and they must do so with neutrality and expertise.
What distinguishes the LCIA, he said, is its frequent role in appointing all three members of a tribunal, especially when no nomination process is agreed. This gives the LCIA the opportunity to build complementary tribunals, combining substantive, procedural, and sectoral expertise.
He cited a Thomson Reuters survey confirming that confidence in arbitrator appointments is one of the leading reasons parties choose the LCIA. The institution’s diversity, transparency, and fairness in appointments, routinely giving opportunities to first-time arbitrators and reaching gender parity have been central to its credibility.
Mr. Nash also previewed a potential future enhancement: the use of AI-assisted, non-black-box tools to generate initial arbitrator lists. These would be reviewed under human oversight to help reduce unconscious bias and improve transparency in the appointment process.
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) and Cultural Fluency
Mr. Nash called for wider use of the LCIA’s EDI Guidelines, especially at the case management conference (‘CMC’) stage. While uptake remains limited, he urged counsel and arbitrators to champion these guidelines proactively, much like the IBA Rules on Evidence have become standard practice.
He argued that diversity in appointments is not tokenistic, but essential to fair adjudication. Cultural fluency, he explained, can have a direct impact on how facts and witness credibility are assessed. Institutions, he said, often outperform parties and co-arbitrators in achieving diversity because they have more comprehensive data and visibility over the global arbitration market.
Confidentiality vs. Transparency: A Measured Approach
Mr. Nash provocatively reframed the debate on confidentiality by suggesting that if we replaced the term “confidential” with “secret,” we might view the issue differently. While reaffirming the LCIA’s strong confidentiality rules, he praised the publication of anonymised challenge decisions as a balanced way to promote procedural transparency without compromising privacy.
He emphasised that user frustration tends to arise not from the length of proceedings, but from “unbargained-for delay.” Publishing average timelines for key procedures (e.g., arbitrator appointments) would foster accountability and manage expectations.
Institutional Anecdotes: Behind the Curtain
In a more personal segment, Mr. Nash shared instructive stories from his institutional experience. One case involved a tribunal disregarding the arbitration clause clear cost-shifting language; another involved handling a claimant’s disappearance mid-proceeding. These cases illustrate how institutional oversight ensures coherence, procedural fairness, and practical problem-solving in real time—strengths not easily replicated in ad hoc arbitration.
He also recounted a challenge where a party claimed bias simply because their first challenge had failed. In another, a party demanded the removal of LCIA counsel. The request was summarily denied, an institutional judgment rooted in fairness, experience, and integrity.
These vignettes, Mr. Nash explained, underscore why institutions matter: they bring consistency, resilience, and trusted judgment to situations that rules alone cannot fully anticipate.
Looking Ahead: Modernising the LCIA Rules
Mr. Nash concluded by noting that while the LCIA’s 2020 Rules remain robust, a future rules revision is under consideration. Any changes, he emphasised, must arise from community demand, not institutional fiat.
Among the potential updates under discussion:
- Fast-track or summary procedures
- Early case assessments and mid-case audits
- Proportionality rules
- Protocols for ESG-related and digital asset disputes
- Rules for mass claims
-
Expansion of the LCIA’s Annex on Counsel Conduct
He acknowledged that some ideas, like mass claims remain controversial, but stressed the importance of addressing complexity proactively rather than reactively.
In his final remarks, Nash reaffirmed the LCIA’s independence—legal, financial, and operational. Unlike many other institutions, the LCIA is not state-backed and receives no public or private funding, a structure that allows it to maintain strict neutrality.
“LCIA and all institutions, we are the gatekeepers and the guardians of due process, and we’re really trying to innovate and push forward new innovations. For us, I think our experience is shaped by our independence. We are not state back or associated with any chamber of commerce. We do not take funding from governments or any private entities, we are financially, legally, and operationally independence. This has helped us in a very practical sense to preserve our ability to administer cases neutrally for parties around the world”- Kevin Nash
He closed with a call for multilateral cooperation, recalling successful joint initiatives during the pandemic, including cross-institutional statements on sanctions and case administration. He expressed hope that the next era of innovation might be driven by collaborative solutions among institutions, rather than purely competitive differentiation.
