Key Contacts: Damien Young – Head of Dispute Resolution and Litigation | Eimear Collins – Partner | Gerald Byrne – Partner | Angelyn Rowan – Head of Construction | Michael Cahill – Partner | Claire Wallace- Duffy – Senior Associate |
Introduction
The revised International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) Rules of Arbitration (the “2026 Rules”/ the “Rules”) entered into force on 1 June 2026 and now apply to cases received by the ICC International Court of Arbitration. The changes are not a complete recasting of ICC arbitration, but they do introduce a number of practical reforms designed to make proceedings more efficient, clearer and easier to manage.
For Irish contracting parties, the changes are particularly timely because of the alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) reforms to Capital Works Management Framework contracts announced on the 16 June 2026 by the Office of Government Procurement (“OGP”). These reforms provide that the ICC Rules will apply where parties to Public Works Contracts are proceeding to arbitration and do not agree to adopt the Arbitration Rules for use with Public Works and Construction Services Contracts (AR1). With the ICC Rules now being formally provided for in Ireland’s Public Works Contracts, it is likely that arbitrations in which the ICC has oversight will become a more familiar feature of public works and infrastructure disputes in Ireland.
That makes the 2026 Rules relevant not only to parties already using ICC arbitration in international commercial contracts, but also to employers, contractors, consultants and public bodies involved in Irish construction and infrastructure projects.
Earlier focus on the shape of the dispute
One of the most significant practical changes introduced by the 2026 Rules is the reduced role of Terms of Reference in ICC proceedings. Under the 2026 Rules, Terms of Reference are no longer a necessary step in every ICC arbitration, although tribunals may still use them where appropriate as a case management tool. The case management conference will therefore assume greater practical importance at the outset of proceedings.
The Rules provide for a case management conference and a procedural timetable, with the initial case management conference being held within 30 days from the arbitral tribunal receiving the file. The Rules also contain a dedicated provision dealing with new claims. New claims may not be introduced after the initial case management conference without the authorisation of the arbitral tribunal. The practical consequence is that parties should expect to define their claims, defences and procedural priorities at an early stage.
For construction and infrastructure disputes, where the factual and contractual background may be complex, this reinforces the need for early factual investigation, careful document management and clear instructions from the outset.In practical terms, the Request for Arbitration and the Answer should be treated as strategically important documents, rather than merely procedural opening steps.
A stronger emphasis on case management
The 2026 Rules retain a clear focus on active management of the arbitration by the tribunal. Article 23 deals with the conduct of the arbitration, while Article 24 addresses the case management conference and procedural timetable. These provisions as important as they frame how the arbitration will be managed, including how quickly the parties will need to identify the issues, agree or contest procedural steps and prepare for the evidential phase. The important point here is that procedural decisions made early in the arbitration may have a significant impact on timing, cost and overall dispute strategy.
Early determination
The 2026 Rules introduce a standalone early determination provision. Article 30 provides a mechanism by which a party may seek early determination of one or more claims or defences that are “manifestly without merit” or “manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction”. This is a significant addition because it gives express recognition to a procedural tool that may allow a tribunal to deal with certain issues without waiting for a full final hearing. It may be particularly useful where a discrete claim, defence or jurisdictional point can properly be addressed at an early stage. The provision should not be seen as a shortcut for every dispute, but it may be relevant where a clearly unmeritorious issue would otherwise add unnecessary time and cost.
Expedited procedure
The 2026 Rules retain the Expedited Procedure Provisions as a distinct procedural route. The monetary threshold below which the Expedited Procedure Provisions will apply automatically has increased to US$4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026. This means that more disputes may fall within the expedited procedure by default, depending on the arbitration agreement and the amount in dispute. The expedited procedure remains relevant for parties who want a more streamlined process, but its suitability will depend on the nature of the dispute.
In a construction context, some disputes may be capable of being dealt with efficiently under an expedited procedure, while others may require a fuller procedure because of technical evidence, expert issues, delay analysis, quantum evidence or multiple parties.
The key drafting point is that parties should consider at contract stage whether expedited arbitration is appropriate for the types of dispute that may arise under the contract.
Highly expedited arbitration
The 2026 Rules also introduce Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions. The ICC has described this as an opt-in procedure intended to provide for a final award within three months of the initial case management conference. The provisions deal specifically with the request, statement of claim, answer, statement of defence, counterclaim and reply to counterclaim. They also include specific provisions on joinder and consolidation, the appointment of a sole arbitrator, the conduct of proceedings and the award. The availability of a highly expedited procedure may be useful for disputes where a fast, final determination is commercially important. It will not be suitable for every dispute, and parties should consider carefully whether the likely issues under a contract could fairly and effectively be resolved within such a compressed framework.
Emergency arbitration and interim relief
The 2026 Rules retain provisions dealing with conservatory and interim measures. They also retain and refine the emergency arbitration procedure. Emergency arbitration may be relevant where urgent relief is needed before the arbitral tribunal has been constituted. The 2026 Rules include emergency arbitrator provisions dealing with the application for emergency measures, appointment of the emergency arbitrator, challenge, place of proceedings, procedure, order, preliminary orders, costs, applications to national courts and the general rule. For contracting parties, these provisions are relevant when assessing whether ICC arbitration provides an adequate framework for urgent interim protection.
Arbitrator independence and disclosure
The 2026 Rules maintain the ICC’s focus on arbitrator independence and impartiality. Article 12 addresses the general provisions relating to the arbitral tribunal. The 2026 Rules require a prospective arbitrator to make a disclosure about their impartiality where any doubts exist about whether they should make a disclosure. The ICC has explained that disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality. In addition, Article 12(5) provides for parties to submit a list of persons and entities whom they believe prospective arbitrators and arbitrators should consider for disclosure purposes, together with reasons. This is particularly relevant in specialist sectors, including construction, infrastructure and energy, where parties, experts, advisers and arbitrators may operate within relatively connected professional networks. The practical message is that conflict checks and arbitrator selection should be approached carefully and early.
Electronic communications and digital case management
The 2026 Rules contain a dedicated provision on written communications. The ICC has explained that written communications are to be made by electronic means, subject to limited circumstances where confirmation of receipt or hard copy delivery may be requested for specified documents. The ICC has also referred to its digital case management platform, ICC Case Connect, as part of the infrastructure supporting communications and document sharing in ICC proceedings. This reinforces the importance of having a coherent approach to document retention, electronic filing, internal reporting and instructions to the legal team from the outset of a dispute.
Time limits and awards
The revised Rules also address the time limit for the final award. Article 34 provides for the President of the ICC Court to fix or extend the time limit for rendering the final award, taking into account the procedural timetable or a reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal. This replaces the previous default six months time limit based on the Terms of Reference.
The 2026 Rules also include provisions dealing with the making of the award, award by consent, scrutiny of the award, signature, notification, deposit and enforceability. For parties, the practical point is that the procedural timetable will remain central to understanding the likely progress of the arbitration and the timing of the final award.
Why this matters in the Public Works Contracts context
As noted above, the introduction of ICC arbitration into certain commonly used Public Works Contracts gives the revisions in the 2026 Rules an added domestic relevance. The inclusion of institutional arbitration in the Capital Works Management Framework overhauls the existing dispute resolution option and ensures active case management, and that arbitrations will be progressed in a timely fashion.
The changes to the ADR provisions in Public Works Contracts also recognise the importance of dispute avoidance. The role of the Standing Conciliator has been expanded (both in the Project Board and the newly introduced “Co-Operation Meetings”) to create a stronger forum for dispute avoidance once an issue is raised by either party that may delay substantial completion, increase the contract sum or impact the performance of the completed asset.
The updated provisions in the Public Works Contracts are significant as the parties may need to engage with both the domestic dispute avoidance framework and the procedural features of ICC arbitration. In light of the changes introduced to the Capital Works Management Framework, employers, contractors and consultants will need to consider how their internal dispute management processes align with ICC procedures. That includes early identification of issues, clear preservation of documents, careful preparation of claims and defences, and consideration of whether expedited or urgent procedures may be appropriate.
Key takeaway
The 2026 ICC Rules do not change the essential nature of ICC arbitration, but they do sharpen a number of procedural tools available to parties and tribunals. The practical effect is that parties should be ready to engage with the substance of the dispute earlier and more clearly. For Irish contracting parties, the main points to consider are early case preparation, the possible use of expedited procedures, the availability of emergency relief, and the need to address arbitrator selection and disclosure carefully.
This article was co-authored by Knowledge Lawyer, Melanie Ardiff and Associate, Paddy Mockler.
