{"id":386041,"date":"2026-06-03T16:30:03","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T11:00:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=386041"},"modified":"2026-06-03T17:20:00","modified_gmt":"2026-06-03T11:50:00","slug":"lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/","title":{"rendered":"LIDW 2026 | The Great Costs Debate: Arbitration, Litigation and the Search for Proportionality"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Held as a session at London International Disputes Week 2026, The Great Costs Debate brought together <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Ms. Paula Hodges KC<\/span>, an independent arbitrator and <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Mr. Carsten van de Sande<\/span>, Partner at Hengeler Mueller &#8211; a litigator to address one of the most persistent questions in commercial dispute resolution: <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">which forum delivers more for less, and what can practitioners in both fields do to bring costs under greater control.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/17-30_costs-debate-1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"700\" height=\"400\"\/><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The session was moderated by <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Ms. Aseel Zimmo<\/span>, Independent Commercial Arbitrator and Mediator, who framed the discussion against the backdrop of the Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey 2025, which identified cost as one of the least attractive features of arbitration. The debate covered client-counsel dynamics, the role of tribunals and institutions, procedural tools, and the structural differences between arbitration and litigation that shape how costs arise and how they can be managed.<\/p>\n<h2>Client-Counsel Dynamics and Expectation Management<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Ms. Aseel Zimmo<\/span> opened by asking <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Mr. Carsten van de Sande<\/span> how a counsel can support clients in controlling costs. He identified expectation management as the foundation of the relationship, describing it as a requirement for clear and candid discussions between counsel and client from the outset, ensuring that expectations are properly aligned before a dispute gathers momentum. In his view, that alignment is what allows clients and counsel to navigate the inevitable moments when costs exceed initial projections. The mechanism for achieving it, he said, is trust built through transparency by being explicit about what the client and counsel can control within the process, and being equally honest about what lies outside anyone&#8217;s hands.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Ms. Paula Hodges KC approached the question from a different angle. She acknowledged that many corporate clients regard both litigation and arbitration as increasingly expensive but noted that the picture is not uniform: when a dispute is genuinely important to a client, they often want every argument pursued and no stone left unturned. The practical implication, she suggested, is that the most important discussion at the outset is not about procedure but about stakes and priorities. Her analogy was direct: is the client seeking the Rolls-Royce or Louis Vuitton version of legal services, or something more functional that still delivers the desired outcome? Getting that question answered early, she argued, shapes everything that follows.<\/p>\n<h2>The Role of Tribunals in Managing Costs<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/17-30_costs-debate-2.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"650\" height=\"400\"\/><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">When Ms. Zimmo turned to examine the role of arbitral tribunals, Ms. Hodges KC offered a candid assessment from her current position as an independent arbitrator. She described cost control as genuinely difficult once proceedings are underway. The first procedural conference, she explained, provides the opportunity to address how the arbitration should be structured; whether a full hearing is necessary, how many witnesses and experts are required, and whether document production is truly warranted. However, once the process begins, preventing parties from producing lengthy submissions that repeat the same points across multiple rounds becomes very difficult in practice. She noted that during her tenure as President of the LCIA she worked to introduce provisions giving arbitrators greater flexibility in managing proceedings efficiently, but acknowledged that parties remain reluctant to stop running every conceivable argument once they have committed to the process.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Mr. Van de Sande&#8217;s perspective on the due process balance was clear: when in doubt, err on the side of procedural fairness. He argued that cost-efficiency should be understood as a by-product of active and informed case management rather than a goal pursued at the expense of fairness. The emphasis on informed case management was deliberate, he distinguished between arbitrators who are merely active and those who have taken the time to understand the case well enough to identify which procedural tools are genuinely useful in a particular dispute. As an example, he pointed to the value of identifying preliminary issues that could be resolved quickly and that, once resolved, might facilitate settlement. Where such an issue exists, he questioned why parties should wait eighteen months for a full hearing to address it.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Ms. Hodges KC added that the procedural order itself is rarely the source of the problem. What matters is the timetable behind it and the process ultimately adopted. She described the utility of holding a further procedural conference after document production and the first round of submissions, to assess whether the original framework remains appropriate as the case develops, while cautioning that there is always a balance between raising questions early and attempting to pre-determine issues before the record is sufficiently developed.<\/p>\n<h2>Counsel Incentives and Tribunal Transparency<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Both panellists addressed the structural tension in how counsel are incentivised. Mr. Van de Sande observed that lawyers are not naturally motivated to minimise costs: they may worry that omitting an argument could ultimately prove to be the point that persuaded the tribunal. He identified tribunal transparency as the mechanism most likely to break that cycle, arguing that if arbitrators are willing to indicate which issues they consider important, counsel can focus their efforts accordingly and clients can make more informed decisions about what they are paying for.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Ms. Hodges KC agreed that counsel bear a responsibility to identify their strongest points and focus on those, observing that parties frequently do themselves a disservice by running every conceivable argument. In her current practice as an arbitrator, she described making it a priority to be clear during pre-hearing conferences about the issues the tribunal wishes to hear addressed, so that the parties&#8217; resources are concentrated on what matters.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Mr. Van de Sande framed dispute resolution as a collaborative process, noting that both parties share a common interest in keeping costs under control. Where arbitrators and judges provide that transparency, and where parties and counsel are willing to cooperate, he argued that meaningful savings could be achieved.<\/p>\n<h2>Tactical Challenges and the Due Process Concern<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/costs-debate-1-3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"450\"\/><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Ms. Zimmo raised the issue of challenges against arbitrators and their potential effect on robust case management. Ms. Hodges KC acknowledged that tactical challenges remain a reality, arbitrators may become reluctant to manage proceedings too assertively if doing so increases the risk of a challenge to their appointment. She identified this as one of the reasons why due process concerns continue to influence arbitral decision-making, with some tribunals defaulting to more permissive procedural frameworks precisely because the cost of getting it wrong can be high.<\/p>\n<h2>Disparities in Spending and the Question of Cost Recovery<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The session then turned to the challenge of disparities in spending between parties. Mr. Van de Sande drew on the German litigation model, noting that cost recovery in Germany has traditionally been linked to statutory fee schedules. Parties know from the outset what they can recover if they succeed, which reduces disputes about proportionality and creates a degree of predictability that arbitration, with its open-ended cost structures, often cannot match.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Ms. Hodges KC noted that most institutional rules require tribunals to assess whether costs claimed are reasonable, and described her own practice of asking both parties to provide detailed costs schedules. She acknowledged that the disparities can be enormous and that tribunals must make difficult judgments about what is proportionate.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Mr. Van de Sande added that some institutional rules encourage discussions about cost caps at an early stage, which can help level the playing field between parties of unequal resources and reduce later disputes about what is recoverable.<\/p>\n<h2>The Role of Institutions<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">On the institutional dimension, Mr. van de Sande suggested that arbitral institutions should focus less on promoting expedited procedures as a universal solution to cost problems and more on creating incentives that encourage cooperation and efficiency between parties.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Ms. Hodges KC offered a pointed qualification: expedited procedures do not automatically reduce costs. In practice, they can simply compress the same quantity of work into a shorter timeframe, leaving the total cost largely unchanged while increasing the pressure on all participants.<\/p>\n<h2>Procedural Mechanisms That Work: Part 36 and Early Determination<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/00costs-debate-1-3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"250\" height=\"450\"\/><\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">When asked to identify one procedural mechanism that genuinely improves cost-efficiency, Mr. van de Sande pointed to the English Part 36 offer mechanism. He described it as creating meaningful incentives for parties to evaluate settlement realistically, attributing high settlement rates in English litigation in part to its disciplining effect on parties who might otherwise pursue disproportionate positions. He also identified early case assessment as a useful tool, particularly when deployed carefully and with the consent of all parties.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Ms. Hodges KC identified early determination as her preferred mechanism. Whether directed at a discrete issue or applied to an entire claim, she described the ability to dispose of matters at an early stage as capable of saving enormous amounts of time and money, and as an underused resource in arbitral proceedings.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 36pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;The ability to dispose of matters at an early stage can save enormous amounts of time and money.&#8221;<\/span> <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">&#8212; Ms. Paula Hodges KC<\/span><\/p>\n<h2>Conclusions<\/h2>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Ms. Zimmo closed the session by observing that the previous day&#8217;s International Arbitration Day had raised suggestions that artificial intelligence may eventually assist with aspects of early case assessment, noting that whether that becomes a reality remains to be seen. Her summary of the session&#8217;s conclusions was that there is no single answer to the challenge of costs in dispute resolution: clients, counsel, tribunals and institutions all have a role to play, and cost-efficiency is ultimately the product of collaboration, transparency and intelligent case management.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The debate did not declare a winner between arbitration and litigation as a matter of cost. What it demonstrated is that the structural characteristics of both forums can be used well or badly, and that the decisions taken by counsel and clients at the outset of a dispute with respect to scope, process and proportionality are more consequential for total cost than the choice of forum itself.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; font-style: italic;\">SCC Times extends its appreciation to Zehra Naqvi, EBC\u2013SCC Online Foreign Student Ambassador and Lawyer, for her on ground presence, valuable assistance and contribution to the reporting of this event.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">Can arbitration deliver better value than litigation? At LIDW 2026, leading practitioners debated proportionality, cost recovery, case management and procedural innovations, concluding that efficient dispute resolution depends less on the forum chosen and more on the decisions made by clients, counsel, tribunals and institutions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67542,"featured_media":386066,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[97664],"tags":[40742,105953,29578,105950,105948,105954,106085,104091,30223,106087,106084,37235,106088,30032,66371,66082,101996,66079,106089,106086,4681,65941,105956,105359],"class_list":["post-386041","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-events-collaborations","tag-arbitral-tribunals","tag-arbitration-analysis","tag-arbitration-costs","tag-arbitration-insights","tag-arbitration-practice","tag-arbitration-thought-leadership","tag-arbitration-vs-litigation","tag-case-management","tag-commercial-disputes","tag-cost-management","tag-cost-efficiency-in-arbitration","tag-dispute-resolution","tag-early-determination","tag-international-arbitration","tag-international-arbitration-day","tag-lidw","tag-lidw-2026","tag-london-international-disputes-week","tag-part-36-offers","tag-proportionality-in-dispute-resolution","tag-scc-online","tag-scc-times","tag-scc-times-arbitration","tag-scc-times-lidw-2026"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.4 (Yoast SEO v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>LIDW 2026 | The Great Costs Debate: Arbitration, Litigation and the Search for Proportionality | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"At LIDW 2026, Paula Hodges KC and Carsten van de Sande examined arbitration costs, litigation efficiency, proportionality, case management, cost recovery and procedural tools that can reduce the expense of commercial dispute resolution.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"LIDW 2026 | The Great Costs Debate: Arbitration, Litigation and the Search for Proportionality\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"At LIDW 2026, Paula Hodges KC and Carsten van de Sande examined arbitration costs, litigation efficiency, proportionality, case management, cost recovery and procedural tools that can reduce the expense of commercial dispute resolution.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-03T11:00:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-06-03T11:50:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/arbitration-costs-proportionality.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Shubra Venkat\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"LIDW 2026 | The Great Costs Debate: Arbitration, Litigation and the Search for Proportionality\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shubra Venkat\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/03\\\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/03\\\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Shubra Venkat\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/3ce252fc014bc3a747557c2820e22bca\"},\"headline\":\"LIDW 2026 | The Great Costs Debate: Arbitration, Litigation and the Search for Proportionality\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-03T11:00:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-03T11:50:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/03\\\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1647,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/03\\\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/arbitration-costs-proportionality.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Arbitral Tribunals\",\"Arbitration Analysis\",\"arbitration costs\",\"Arbitration Insights\",\"Arbitration Practice\",\"Arbitration Thought Leadership\",\"Arbitration vs Litigation\",\"Case Management\",\"commercial disputes\",\"Cost Management\",\"Cost-Efficiency in Arbitration\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Early Determination\",\"International arbitration\",\"International Arbitration Day\",\"LIDW\",\"LIDW 2026\",\"London International Disputes Week\",\"Part 36 Offers\",\"Proportionality in Dispute Resolution\",\"SCC Online\",\"SCC Times\",\"SCC Times Arbitration\",\"SCC Times LIDW 2026\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Events &amp; Collaborations\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/03\\\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/03\\\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/03\\\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\\\/\",\"name\":\"LIDW 2026 | The Great Costs Debate: Arbitration, Litigation and the Search for Proportionality | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/03\\\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/03\\\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/arbitration-costs-proportionality.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-03T11:00:03+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-03T11:50:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/3ce252fc014bc3a747557c2820e22bca\"},\"description\":\"At LIDW 2026, Paula Hodges KC and Carsten van de Sande examined arbitration costs, litigation efficiency, proportionality, case management, cost recovery and procedural tools that can reduce the expense of commercial dispute resolution.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/03\\\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/03\\\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/03\\\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/arbitration-costs-proportionality.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/arbitration-costs-proportionality.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"arbitration costs proportionality\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/03\\\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"LIDW 2026 | The Great Costs Debate: Arbitration, Litigation and the Search for Proportionality\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/3ce252fc014bc3a747557c2820e22bca\",\"name\":\"Shubra Venkat\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/9f9c55c5270dfe9840ada06ed0698f1328e92e937fd70b4fb4c0c11680e9ae95?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/9f9c55c5270dfe9840ada06ed0698f1328e92e937fd70b4fb4c0c11680e9ae95?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/9f9c55c5270dfe9840ada06ed0698f1328e92e937fd70b4fb4c0c11680e9ae95?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Shubra Venkat\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/shubra-venkat\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"LIDW 2026 | The Great Costs Debate: Arbitration, Litigation and the Search for Proportionality | SCC Times","description":"At LIDW 2026, Paula Hodges KC and Carsten van de Sande examined arbitration costs, litigation efficiency, proportionality, case management, cost recovery and procedural tools that can reduce the expense of commercial dispute resolution.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"LIDW 2026 | The Great Costs Debate: Arbitration, Litigation and the Search for Proportionality","og_description":"At LIDW 2026, Paula Hodges KC and Carsten van de Sande examined arbitration costs, litigation efficiency, proportionality, case management, cost recovery and procedural tools that can reduce the expense of commercial dispute resolution.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-06-03T11:00:03+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-06-03T11:50:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/arbitration-costs-proportionality.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Shubra Venkat","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"LIDW 2026 | The Great Costs Debate: Arbitration, Litigation and the Search for Proportionality","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shubra Venkat","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/"},"author":{"name":"Shubra Venkat","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/3ce252fc014bc3a747557c2820e22bca"},"headline":"LIDW 2026 | The Great Costs Debate: Arbitration, Litigation and the Search for Proportionality","datePublished":"2026-06-03T11:00:03+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-03T11:50:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/"},"wordCount":1647,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/arbitration-costs-proportionality.webp","keywords":["Arbitral Tribunals","Arbitration Analysis","arbitration costs","Arbitration Insights","Arbitration Practice","Arbitration Thought Leadership","Arbitration vs Litigation","Case Management","commercial disputes","Cost Management","Cost-Efficiency in Arbitration","Dispute Resolution","Early Determination","International arbitration","International Arbitration Day","LIDW","LIDW 2026","London International Disputes Week","Part 36 Offers","Proportionality in Dispute Resolution","SCC Online","SCC Times","SCC Times Arbitration","SCC Times LIDW 2026"],"articleSection":["Events &amp; Collaborations"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/","name":"LIDW 2026 | The Great Costs Debate: Arbitration, Litigation and the Search for Proportionality | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/arbitration-costs-proportionality.webp","datePublished":"2026-06-03T11:00:03+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-03T11:50:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/3ce252fc014bc3a747557c2820e22bca"},"description":"At LIDW 2026, Paula Hodges KC and Carsten van de Sande examined arbitration costs, litigation efficiency, proportionality, case management, cost recovery and procedural tools that can reduce the expense of commercial dispute resolution.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/arbitration-costs-proportionality.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/arbitration-costs-proportionality.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"arbitration costs proportionality"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/03\/lidw-2026-the-great-costs-debate-arbitration-litigation-search-for-proportionality\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"LIDW 2026 | The Great Costs Debate: Arbitration, Litigation and the Search for Proportionality"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/3ce252fc014bc3a747557c2820e22bca","name":"Shubra Venkat","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9f9c55c5270dfe9840ada06ed0698f1328e92e937fd70b4fb4c0c11680e9ae95?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9f9c55c5270dfe9840ada06ed0698f1328e92e937fd70b4fb4c0c11680e9ae95?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/9f9c55c5270dfe9840ada06ed0698f1328e92e937fd70b4fb4c0c11680e9ae95?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Shubra Venkat"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/shubra-venkat\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/arbitration-costs-proportionality.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/386041","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67542"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=386041"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/386041\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":386047,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/386041\/revisions\/386047"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/386066"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=386041"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=386041"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=386041"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}