This article was first published in Law Middle East and can be accessed here.
Introduction
The construction sector presents unique challenges when it comes to efficient dispute resolution. Disputes tend to be data and document-heavy, and frequently involve multiple parties and numerous, high-value and interrelated disputes. This complexity can drive up legal costs.
While international arbitration remains the preferred method of dispute resolution for international construction projects,1 users consistently decry its inability to deliver speedy outcomes and excessive costs as its worst characteristics.2
Methods by which international arbitration might be made more efficient were a topic addressed by the 2025 International Arbitration Survey undertaken by the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London, in partnership with White & Case. The sixth edition of the survey compiled responses from more than 2,400 practitioners, arbitrators, arbitral institutions, academics and clients. Those responses offer a fascinating insight into how changing procedures and developing technologies offer new methods for reducing cost and minimising delays.
Expedited Procedures
When asked who was to blame for inefficiency in arbitration, respondents pointed the finger at counsel and arbitrators in roughly equal measure.3 There was greater consensus, however, on the processes that might tackle that inefficiency: expedited arbitration procedures and summary determination of meritless claims and defences.4
The complexity of many construction disputes can make them unsuitable for expedited resolution,5 however, the widespread adoption of 'fast-track' procedures by arbitral institutions over the last five years is beginning to influence opinion: nearly half of respondents to the survey had used expedited procedures in that time, the vast majority of whom found them efficient and would use them again.6 This positive user experience seems likely to spur further growth in the use of these procedures, as they become more familiar. They may be of particular interest in the context of an ongoing project, where the contract (or underlying law) provide no adjudication procedure, and quick resolution would be useful to minimise disruption.
In relation to summary procedures, some respondents expressed concern about challenges to enforcement of summary awards on due process grounds.7 Once again, however, summary determination is an option increasingly afforded to arbitrators under popular institutional rules. Due process concerns may be allayed, at least in respect of London-seated arbitrations, by the recent passage of the Arbitration Act 2025, which expressly empowers tribunals to issue summary awards in respect of claims or defences that have no real prospect of success. This approach may be particularly suitable for claims or defences that turn on narrow points of contractual interpretation (such as the meaning of a clause excluding liability), where summary determination of that narrow issue might dispose of the dispute entirely.
AI Tools
Another striking feature of the survey was the number of respondents who expected to make greater use of AI tools in the near future. A majority of respondents were already using them for conducting research, data analysis or document review, and at least 90% of respondents expected to be undertaking those tasks with AI assistance in the next five years.8 Tools like these are well suited to grappling with the detailed project records and data bases meaning that construction disputes practitioners should be well placed to reap efficiency gains. When asked what would drive their greater use of AI tools, respondents put time savings (for both parties and counsel) at the top of the list.9
There are reasons for caution, however, and it is important for counsel and arbitrators to understand the capabilities of the AI tools available to them. By way of example, when asked what use an arbitrator might appropriately make of AI tools, respondents were most comfortable with their use for calculating damages. While supportive respondents explained their position by describing the task as primarily mathematical,10 current AI models are notoriously bad at completing simple mathematical calculations accurately,11 and quantum experts among the respondents expressed profound reservations about using AI tools for such tasks.12
Conclusion
There clearly remains an appetite among users of international arbitration to make the process more time and cost-efficient. Provided they are used judiciously, with a clear understanding of their benefits and limitations, the procedural adaptations and technological innovations available to construction arbitration practitioners present many opportunities to do just that.
1 2018 International Arbitration Survey, page 3.
2 2015 International Arbitration Survey, page 7; 2018 International Arbitration Survey, page 8.
3 2025 International Arbitration Survey, page 15.
4 2025 International Arbitration Survey, pages 16-17.
5 2025 International Arbitration Survey, page 19.
6 2025 International Arbitration Survey, page 18.
7 2025 International Arbitration Survey, page 19.
8 2025 International Arbitration Survey, page 28.
9 2025 International Arbitration Survey, page 29.
10 2025 International Arbitration Survey, page 31.
11 https://www.ft.com/content/579d4033-4b37-43a4-9982-8f58f9375c5a
12 2025 International Arbitration Survey, page 31.
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2025 White & Case LLP
