In This Issue:

- Can the cost of international arbitration be controlled?

- Sealing the deal: critical Issues in the preparation of mediated settlement agreements

- Mediation decision-makers need “Decision-Quality Information”

- Upcoming events

- Representative Matters

- Excerpt from Can the cost of international arbitration be controlled?:

One of the common complaints of arbitration is that it costs too much. Those costs arise from both the costs that a party has to pay its lawyers, experts and others to conduct the arbitration process and the costs of the arbitration process itself. The costs may then be greatly increased when a party is unsuccessful in the arbitration and, under the relevant institutional rules or the law of the seat, has to pay the costs of the other party. In general terms, a party can exercise some control over the legal costs that it has to pay. Equally by choosing institutional arbitration or agreeing to the fees of arbitrators, a party can control that element of cost. What a party generally has no power to control are the costs that the other party may recover if that party is unsuccessful. It depends on unknown arrangements that the receiving party has made with its lawyers.

The English courts have now implemented major changes, following a detailed review of the costs of civil litigation. Those changes, known as the Jackson reforms,1 focus on the need to reduce civil litigation costs. The overall aim is to give parties access to justice at proportionate cost. That aim is no less important in international arbitration. This article considers whether there are lessons that the international arbitration community might learn from this review of civil litigation costs and the subsequent reforms.