01
Administration
Institutional arbitration gives a secretariat that manages appointments, deadlines, fees and logistics; ad hoc arbitration places all of that on the parties and the tribunal, demanding far more active management from counsel.
Institutional arbitration buys administration, certainty and a scrutinised award. Ad hoc arbitration buys control and, sometimes, lower cost - at the price of doing the institution’s job yourself. The choice belongs in the clause, made deliberately, not discovered when the dispute is already live.
The right model depends on the value of likely disputes, the sophistication of the parties, the need for speed and the importance of an enforceable, scrutinised award. We map each factor to your contract rather than apply a default.
Institutional arbitration gives a secretariat that manages appointments, deadlines, fees and logistics; ad hoc arbitration places all of that on the parties and the tribunal, demanding far more active management from counsel.
An institution maintains panels and appoints under its rules when parties cannot agree; in ad hoc arbitration a deadlock usually means a Section 11 application to the court, which adds time and cost.
Institutions publish fee schedules that make cost predictable but add an administrative charge; ad hoc arbitration can be cheaper for cooperative, sophisticated parties but exposes them to fee disputes and uncapped delay.
Institutional rules build in timetables, expedited procedures and emergency arbitrators; ad hoc arbitration relies on the parties and the tribunal to design and enforce the procedure, with no external backstop.
Some institutions, notably the ICC, scrutinise the draft award before it is issued, reducing enforceability risk; an ad hoc award has no such second check before it is delivered.
We recommend the model - and the specific institution where institutional - that fits the value, the parties and the likely enforcement forum, and we draft the clause to match it precisely.
Each question narrows the choice. The value, the parties, the speed, the enforcement forum and the appetite for administration together point to one model and, where institutional, to one institution.
High-value or complex disputes usually justify the certainty and scrutiny of an institution; routine low-value disputes may suit ad hoc.
Experienced repeat players can run ad hoc arbitration; parties new to arbitration benefit from institutional administration.
Where time is critical, institutional expedited procedures and emergency arbitrators give a structured fast track.
Where enforcement will cross borders, a recognised institution and a scrutinised award reduce enforceability risk.
If the parties do not want to run logistics, fees and appointments themselves, an institution does that work.
Every choice of model is read through three lenses at once. It has to be technically workable in the clause, commercially proportionate to the value of likely disputes, and legally sound in the forum where the award will be enforced.
We draft the clause precisely to the chosen model, with a robust appointment mechanism for ad hoc and the correct rules and institution named for institutional, avoiding inconsistent fallback language.
We weigh the true cost of each model on the realistic worst case - the administrative fee of an institution against the court-detour risk of ad hoc - so the choice reflects value, not headline price.
We match the model and, where institutional, the specific body to the seat, the sector and the enforcement forum, so the award is administered and scrutinised in the way most likely to hold.
The case for ad hoc arbitration is cost and control, and for cooperative, sophisticated parties it can deliver both. But the saving evaporates the moment a party turns obstructive - a refusal to appoint, a fee dispute, a procedural stand-off - because the only backstop is the court. Institutional arbitration prices that risk in advance. We help clients see the true cost, not the headline one.
Short, direct, on the record.
In institutional arbitration the dispute is administered by an arbitral institution - such as SIAC, the ICC, the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration, the Delhi International Arbitration Centre or the Indian Council of Arbitration - under that institution’s published rules. The institution helps appoint the tribunal, manages deadlines and fees, provides facilities and, in some cases, scrutinises the award. In ad hoc arbitration there is no administering body: the parties and the tribunal run the arbitration themselves, agreeing the procedure, fixing the arbitrators’ fees and managing the logistics, often using the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules as a framework. The distinction is essentially about who carries the administrative load and who provides the backstop when something goes wrong.
Neither is universally better - the right model depends on the dispute. Institutional arbitration is generally preferable for high-value, complex or cross-border disputes, for parties who are new to arbitration, and where enforceability and certainty matter most, because the institution provides administration, a structured timetable, emergency-arbitrator provisions and, in some cases, scrutiny of the award. Ad hoc arbitration can work well for sophisticated repeat players and lower-value domestic disputes where the parties are cooperative and want to control cost and procedure. Indian practice has historically been dominated by ad hoc arbitration, but the 2019 amendment and the creation of the Arbitration Council of India reflect a clear policy push towards institutional arbitration.
It can be, but the saving is conditional. Ad hoc arbitration avoids the institution’s administrative fee, and for cooperative, sophisticated parties that can mean a genuinely lower cost. The problem is that the saving depends on everyone behaving. If a party refuses to appoint its arbitrator, disputes the arbitrators’ fees, or stalls the procedure, the only remedy is to go to court - typically a Section 11 application for appointment - which adds delay and cost that can dwarf the institutional fee that was avoided. Institutional arbitration prices that risk in advance through a published fee schedule and internal mechanisms. So ad hoc is cheaper only if the worst case does not happen, and the clause should be chosen on the realistic worst case.
An arbitral institution administers the arbitration under its rules. In practice this means it assists with or makes the appointment of arbitrators when the parties cannot agree, applies a published schedule to fix and collect the arbitrators’ fees and its own administrative charge, manages the procedural timetable and deadlines, often provides hearing facilities and case-management support, offers expedited procedures and emergency-arbitrator mechanisms for urgent cases, and in some institutions scrutinises the draft award before it is issued to reduce the risk of an enforceability defect. None of this changes who decides the dispute - the tribunal still decides - but it removes the administrative burden from the parties and provides a reliable backstop when a party tries to obstruct.
Only by agreement. The model is fixed by the arbitration clause, and once a dispute has arisen the parties are usually at odds, so persuading a reluctant counterparty to move from ad hoc to institutional administration is difficult. It is occasionally done - parties who both find the ad hoc process unmanageable may agree to refer the administration to an institution - but it cannot be imposed unilaterally. This is precisely why the choice belongs in the clause at the drafting stage, when both parties still share an interest in an efficient process, rather than being left to be negotiated in the heat of a live dispute.
Cross-border arbitration under Section 2(1)(f), seat, governing law and institutional rules
Part II enforcement under the New York and Geneva Conventions, Section 48 grounds
Challenging a domestic award - grounds, patent illegality, public policy, limitation
The strongest awards are built on disciplined strategy from the first notice of arbitration, not improvised at the hearing.