On 3 July 2025, the London Court of International Arbitration released statistics revealing the unique features of the Court’s casework in 2024 in their LCIA 2024 Annual Casework Report (the “Report”).

The LCIA registered 318 new arbitrations under its rules. As noted below, those comprise the bulk but not the entirety of the LCIA’s casework, with the LCIA offering a number of other services. We have selected a few notable facts below. More is contained in the Report.

Parties, seats and applicable laws: an international caseload

Contrary to popular belief, the large majority (95% in 2024) of arbitrations under the LCIA rules are international in nature. This is confirmed again this year, with 95% of cases involving parties from no less than 101 jurisdictions, with the LCIA’s top five users coming from Kenya, the United States, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the Russian Federation (compared to the United States, Brazil, Spain, Mexico, China and Italy for the ICC). Cases involving parties from Africa and Asia were on the rise, representing 17% and 9% of all new cases.

14% of LCIA cases involved states and state-owned entities, up from 11% in 2023 (a proportion similar to the ICC).

The LCIA maintains its appeal in large number of industry sectors

The LCIA has historically been a popular option for parties in the Transport and Commodities, Banking and Finance, Energy and Resources, and Construction and Infrastructure sectors. 2024 was no exception, despite competition from the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) which offers rules of arbitration (but does not administer cases) for maritime arbitrations, many of which are commodities disputes.

London remains a favoured seat

London was the chosen seat in 89% of LCIA arbitrations, confirming the continued attractiveness of English arbitration law (London was also the top seat for ICC arbitrations in 2024). Other cases had their seats in 15 other jurisdictions.

The substantive law was the law of England and Wales in 78% of arbitrations (compared to 15% of ICC new cases in 2024). Parties more frequently than not chose the combination of London as the seat and the law of England and Wales as the substantive law. Where the seat was not London, the parties preferred other laws as the substantive law. In two cases, the substantive law was the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods or CISG, either on its own or in combination with French law.

Parties using new rules to consolidate or run concurrent arbitrations

Consolidation and concurrent arbitrations

The 2020 LCIA Rules offer parties the option of (a) consolidating multiple arbitrations into a single arbitration, even when those are not all governed by the same LCIA rules, or (b) having them run concurrently by the same tribunal. Both options can helpfully streamline multi-contract and multi-party disputes.

Four years on, the opportunity proves popular with users. In 2024, the LCIA received 40 applications for consolidation, virtually all of which were granted. Two applications for concurrent conduct of proceedings were granted, and a further one resulted in consolidation.

Joinder of parties

More applications for joinder (where a non-party consents to become a party in the arbitration) were submitted as compared to 2023. Those allow the arbitral tribunal to exercise jurisdiction in relation to the new party (jurisdiction which is otherwise lacking for non-parties).

Composite RFAs

The LCIA also received 29  “composite” requests for arbitration, where a claimant submits a single request to commence two or more arbitrations under the LCIA Rules (whether against one or more Respondents and under one or more arbitration agreements). In 2024, 76% of those composite RFAs resulted in consolidation.

Parties choose Tribunal members, LCIA Court frequently asked to appoint sole arbitrators

The Report shows parties continue to prefer selecting their own arbitrators. As with previous years, the LCIA Court only nominates a relatively small number of arbitrators each year (between 33% – 42%). The exception is for sole arbitrators, where the LCIA Court is frequently required to make the nomination.  In 2024, this represented 85% of all sole arbitrator appointments.

Arbitrator challenges remain rare, and rarely granted

A relatively small number of challenges (10) were filed in 2024, all of which were rejected. This reflects the modest prospects of success. Over the past six years, only one such challenge led to the removal of the arbitrator. Those new decisions have not yet been published on the LCIA’s Challenge Decision Database.

Fast-forwarding arbitrations: expedited formation of tribunals and emergency arbitrations

Since 2020, in cases of exceptional urgency, the LCIA can set or abridge any period of time agreed by the parties, including the time limits set forth in its own rules for the formation of the arbitral tribunal – a unique feature in the LCIA regime. In 2024, parties in 15 cases sought to fast forward the formation of the arbitral tribunal applications, only one of which was granted. The chances of success have varied between 7% and 40% in previous years. They are incredibly fact sensitive, so those figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. By contrast, 18% of new cases registered by the ICC during the same period were expedited arbitrations. Part of this success will be due to the automatic application of the ICC’s expedited procedure to cases where the amount in dispute is below US$3 million, rather than following party agreement.

Parties favoured the option of speeding up the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, rather than seek to appoint a temporary emergency arbitrator. Only four requests for the appointment of emergency arbitrators were made in 2024, in line with previous years (making up 1.2% of new cases, compared to 2% for the ICC).

A bright future for early determination provisions following arbitration reform in the UK?

On 1 August 2025, England’s new arbitration statute, the Arbitration Act 2025 (the “Act”), entered into force. The Act includes provisions giving arbitral tribunals the power to make an award on a summary basis if a case meets certain criteria. While such possibility was already a feature in the LCIA regime since 2020, the Act will give extra comfort to tribunals seated in London that they have the power to hear and decide such applications.

In 2024, there were 16 such applications, with mixed results. Only one was granted, eight were rejected. Five other were withdrawn, one superseded and one application remains pending.

Interim relief

In 2024, 65 applications for interim and conservatory measures were submitted. Tribunals granted relief either fully or partially 24 of those applications, and rejected the application in 28 instances. Other applications were either superseded, withdrawn, or remain pending. Security for costs was the most common interim relief sought by the parties.

Demand for other LCIA Services maintained

The Report also shows demand for other LCIA services, including for:

• mediations under the LCIA Mediation Rules,
• fundholding services (whereby the LCIA holds funds for parties and tribunals engaged in non-LCIA administered arbitrations),
• administration and/or ad hoc support of non-LCIA arbitrations (where the LCIA administers or provides services in support of arbitrations conducted under other arbitration rules, e.g. the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules); and
• appointment services, for instance in adjudications, expert determinations, and ad hoc arbitration.

In summary, the data from 2024 reveals a particularly international framework, with parties seeking to make use of recently introduced features.

Our team regularly acts in high-value, complex and often politically sensitive international arbitrations across a range of specialist sectors. We have represented many parties in LCIA proceedings. We also regularly seek or defend applications for injunctions or to resist enforcement of arbitral awards against assets in London and other jurisdictions.

If you would like to discuss the contents of the article further or the specificities of your dispute, please contact Jonathan Brook, Konrad Rogers or Caroline Croft.