Bugbears and Best Practices in International Arbitration How Can Arbitration Better Serve Its Users?

Iain Clark attended London International Disputes Week 2025, follow his thought leadership series where he provides insight to key sessions throughout the week, key takeaways and what they mean for dispute resolution practitioners in Scotland. 

In part 2 of the panel moderated by Ben Holland, the senior in-house counsel candidly shared practical insights on how international arbitration can better meet the needs of its users. The key message: arbitration must be efficient, commercially grounded, and party-focused.

Alan Henderson stated that whilst his experience of arbitration is generally positive, frustrations remain. A key issue is arbitrators’ lack of appreciation for how construction projects operate in the Middle East. Local customs and informal practices are often misunderstood. Tribunals can rely too heavily on written submissions rather than recognising commercial context or what’s actually happening on the ground.

Suber Akther contrasted court and arbitral processes, noting that arbitration offers party-driven expert evidence, unlike courts which may require joint experts. However, some arbitrators—particularly sole arbitrators—are overly cautious and slow to engage. Parties expect arbitrators to read in early and take control of proceedings from the outset.

Borja García Ruiz called for higher standards of professionalism from arbitrators, sharing a striking example of a tribunal member joining a hearing from an airport, asking basic procedural questions that showed they hadn’t read the file, undermining confidence and delaying resolution.

Dr. SANJEEV GEMAWAT flagged how ad hoc arbitrations can be slowed down by drawn-out procedures and overly close relationships between arbitrators and lawyers, discouraging tough advocacy and driving up costs . He also emphasised the need for process certainty and independence from tribunal members.

Key Takeaways for Legal Teams and Clients:

Early Engagement Matters: Arbitrators must take charge from the start, reading-in early and understanding the commercial context leads to better decisions and faster resolution.

Procedural Control is Critical: Arbitration’s value lies in party autonomy but tribunals must manage process efficiently and resist unnecessary caution.

Expert Evidence must clarify, not confuse. Overreliance on written reports over lived commercial realities is frustrating.

Independence: Parties must trust in the neutrality of the tribunal. Any perception of partiality undermines the process.

Arbitration Remains Preferable When Done Well: For international disputes, arbitration still beats court litigation but only when tribunals and counsel stay focused on the core goal: efficient, fair, enforceable outcomes.

At Gilson Gray LLP, we support clients from contract drafting to final Award, helping you structure effective arbitration clauses, choosing seats and institutions, and managing disputes with strategic clarity.

To discuss any of the points raised further, please contact him below or a member of our Litigation team here.

The information and opinions contained in this blog are for information only.  They are not intended to constitute advice and should not be relied upon or considered as a replacement for advice.  Before acting on any information contained in this blog, please seek solicitor’s advice from Gilson Gray.