LCIA releases latest statistics: What do they tell us?

Overview

The LCIA is the leading non-specialist arbitral institution in London and one of the top three institutions globally (along with the ICC Court of Arbitration and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre). Given that, and because 85% of parties in 2024 were from outside the UK and 95% of its cases involved at least one non-UK party, the LCIA’s casework statistics provide valuable insight into wider trends in international dispute resolution.

Highlights from the latest statistics include:

1. The total number of cases remained consistent, falling slightly from 377 to 362.
2. London was seat in nearly 89% of LCIA arbitrations in 2024 and English law was the governing law in 78%.
3. States and SOEs represent the highest-ever proportion of parties, at 14%.
4. Transport and commodities was the largest sector group (29%), following by Banking and Finance (17%), with energy and resources dropping to 10% of cases.
5. Around 30% of all arbitrator appointments were repeat (i.e. by the same party or law firm) and 16% were first-time.
6. The LCIA received 10 arbitrator challenges in 2024, and none succeeded (albeit one resigned): there has only been one challenge upheld in the past six years.
7. Applications for urgent measures through Expedited Formation and Emergency Arbitrators are growing (although successful ones remain rare – there was only one of each in 2024).
8. There is evidence of increasing take-up of the Tribunal’s power to resolve issues summarily through Early Determination.
9. All 40 of the consolidation applications made in 2024 were granted.

The Casework Report

Case Numbers

1. The LCIA’s latest statistics indicate that the number of cases in total dipped slightly this year. Among other reasons, this may be indicative of the recent proliferation of institutions and a global trend towards diversification of choice of institution in international contracts. Anecdotally, we have seen evidence of an increasing range of institutions and seats being proposed during contract negotiations, particularly involving States and SOEs keen to promote arbitration within their jurisdictions. Whilst most clients insist upon one of a small group of major global institutions, some press for a less well-known body to administer the arbitration and institutions are often seen as an easier compromise than the seat or governing law.

Parties

2. The split of cases by sector handled by the LCIA has continued to evolve in 2024. Overall, the statistics seem to show an increasing spread across sectors. Transport and commodities remains the most prevalent sector, albeit it reduced from 36% in 2023 to 29% in 2024. Energy and resources cases dipped from 14% of cases in 2023 to 10% of cases in 2024 while LCIA arbitration in the banking and finance sectors increased from 16% to 17% of cases. The remaining cases were dispersed widely amongst sectors, none of which represented more than 10% of cases, including Construction and Infrastructure (8%), Technology (6%), Healthcare and Pharma (5%) and Telecoms (4%).

3. Consistently with this plurality of sectors, with a strong emphasis on commodities and resources, 36% of LCIA cases arose under contracts for the sale of goods and 19% from contracts for services. Such contracts cover a wide range of transactions in international trade: 11% of cases arose from loan or other financial facility agreements.

4. The LCIA’s sector coverage compared favourably with that of the other globally popular institution, the ICC. The ICC recently announced that construction/engineering cases were around 23% of its total, and energy cases represented 20.5% of its total. Financial sector matters represented less than 5% of the ICC’s cases, indicating a preference by parties in that field for the LCIA reflecting London’s position as a financial hub.

Parties

5. Parties to LCIA Arbitrations in 2024 were spread across regions of the globe. The proportion of parties from most regions held steady in 2024 compared to 2023, although the proportion of parties from Europe reduced from 21% to 18%, and parties from MENA countries reduced from 16% to 11%. The primary balancing increase was in African parties, which increased from 8% to 17% of all parties, only 1% less than European parties – a genuinely striking statistic. 7.7% of parties came from Kenya, alone.

6. This increase in African participation may correlate to the increase in the number of state and SOE parties, which will often be involved in African cases where SOEs are frequently parties to infrastructure, energy and resources contracts. It may also be that African parties have tended to favour the LCIA on the basis that it is perceived as more cost-effective than the ICC, due to its policy of charging for administration and arbitrator fees on the basis of hourly rates for work done.

Governing law and seat

7. The statistics show that the selection of the LCIA remains highly consistent with a choice of England as the seat of arbitration and English law as the governing law. Whilst 248 cases involved England as the seat and the governing law, no more than 4 cases were seated in any one other location.  89% of LCIA cases have a London seat. The proportion of LCIA cases in which English law was chosen remains high but has reduced slightly from 83% to 78%. This strong tendency to use the LCIA for English seat and law cases is likely to be associated with the strong perception in the market that the LCIA is the best choice of institution to select arbitrators when English is the governing law and the parties desire suitably expert arbitrators experienced in English law issues.

Arbitrators

8. As for the tribunals, there has been a gradual movement over the last three years from three-member tribunals (59% down to 53%) to sole arbitrators (41% up to 47%), albeit most tribunals still consist of three members. This will mainly have been due to the parties’ choice in the contract, although there will have been cases where the parties have agreed on a sole arbitrator given the nature of the case, such as the amount in dispute. The majority (55%) of LCIA arbitrators are of UK nationality, although when the LCIA appointed arbitrators in 2024 (rather than the parties making the choice of a sole, or of two members of a tribunal), 60% of its selections were non-British. 33% of arbitrators appointed were women, and when the LCIA Court selected arbitrators, 45% of their selections were women.

Potential developments

9. At a time when the Arbitration Act 2025 has recently updated the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act), the LCIA has indicated that it expects that parties may increasingly take advantage of its rules providing for summary determination of issues and emergency interim measures. The Act now gives stronger support to tribunal’s power to grant measures such as interim injunctions, to help ensure that the arbitration is effective and not rendered futile by unilateral party action. The Act also expressly recognises summary dismissal of cases so that parties can deal with unmeritorious cases without the need for a costly and lengthy full trial on the merits. The statistics show that the number of such applications has remained approximately consistent in recent years. It is notable that, in all of the last four years, most applications were unsuccessful when a party applied for expedited formation, an emergency arbitrator and early determination.

Conclusion

The LCIA has demonstrated a continued strength for cases concerning commodities, trade and transport, and disputes in the financial sector. For cases where English is the governing law and seat of arbitration, it has maintained its popularity. States, particularly in Africa, also show an enduring preference for the institution. However, there is evidence of the LCIA seeing fewer cases arising out of contracts in the energy and commodities sectors, and a slight dip in overall case volume, which could be a reflection of competition internationally from other institutions.