The London Court of International Arbitration (the “LCIA”) published its Annual Casework Report 2025 (the “Report”) in October 2026.[1] The Report covers the LCIA’s 2025 casework, including referrals, parties, arbitrator appointments and procedural applications. It also publishes selected institutional turnaround times for the first time.[2]
The timing statistics show how quickly the LCIA handled initial correspondence, applications for urgent tribunal formation and emergency arbitrator applications.[3]
1. Caseload and Services
The LCIA received 365 referrals in 2025, compared with 362 in 2024.[4] Arbitrations under the LCIA Arbitration Rules (the “LCIA Rules”) accounted for 320 referrals, or 88% of the total, compared with 318 in 2024.[5] Referral numbers therefore remained relatively stable compared with 2024.[6]
The remaining 45 referrals comprised 27 fundholding arbitrations, 11 referrals concerning UNCITRAL arbitrations and other ad hoc arbitrations, and seven LCIA mediations or other alternative dispute resolution matters.[7]
2. Industry Sectors and Underlying Agreements
The Report classifies disputes by their primary sector, independently of the industries in which the parties operate.[8] Transport and commodities remained the largest sector, accounting for 25% of LCIA Rules arbitrations, down from 29% in 2024; banking and finance remained at 17% when rounded to the nearest whole percentage point; and energy and resources increased from 10% to 14%.[9] Together, these three sectors accounted for 56% of LCIA Rules arbitrations in both years.[10]
Professional services had the largest increase in share, from 5% to 11%, and became the fourth-largest sector.[11] Technology increased from 6% to 7%, while construction and infrastructure decreased from 8% to 4%.[12]
Among recorded agreement instances, sale of goods agreements remained the largest category at 30%, compared with 35% in 2024, while services agreements increased from 18% to 26%.[13] Shareholders’, share purchase or joint venture agreements and loan or other loan facility agreements each accounted for 13% in 2025; the four largest categories together represented 82% of recorded agreement instances.[14]
Of the agreements underlying LCIA Rules arbitrations commenced in 2025, 60% had been executed within the preceding four years, and their median age was 3.3 years, compared with 3.0 years for arbitrations commenced in 2024.[15] The Report calculates these periods using exact agreement and commencement dates. It also restates the 2021-2024 figures using this method.[16]
3. International Participation, Seats and Governing Laws
Parties to LCIA Rules arbitrations commenced in 2025 came from 103 jurisdictions, compared with 100 in 2024.[17] Of those arbitrations, 96% involved at least one party from outside the United Kingdom, and 77% involved no United Kingdom parties.[18]
Western Europe, including the United Kingdom, accounted for the largest regional share of parties, increasing from 33.1% to 37.3%.[19] The Middle East and North Africa increased from 10.1% to 14.9%, becoming the second-largest regional group, while Sub-Saharan Africa decreased from 16.4% to 13.1%.[20] The share of parties from India increased from 1.2% to 2.5%, and the United States’ share increased from 6.4% to 7.3%.[21]
States or state-owned entities were involved in 11% of LCIA Rules arbitrations commenced in 2025, compared with 14% in 2024.[22] Separately, the proportion of arbitrations involving more than two parties increased from 20% to 28%.[23]
Despite the international range of parties, London remained the preferred seat, accounting for 87% of arbitrations commenced in 2025, compared with 88% in 2024. The law of England and Wales applied in 79% of arbitrations, compared with 78% in 2024.[24] Overall, the 2025 arbitrations spanned 21 seats in 16 jurisdictions and 28 substantive laws across 24 jurisdictions.[25]
The Dubai International Financial Centre was the second most common seat, chosen in ten arbitrations. Kenyan law was the second most common governing law, applying in 16 arbitrations.[26]
4. Relief Sought and Dispute Values
Claims or counterclaims seeking monetary relief were made in 93% of LCIA Rules arbitrations commenced in 2025.[27] Monetary relief alone was sought in 45% of arbitrations, monetary relief together with declaratory relief or specific performance in 48%, and declaratory relief or specific performance without monetary relief in 8%, with rounding accounting for the percentages not totalling 100%.[28]
Among cases involving quantified monetary relief, 28% were below USD 1 million and 5% involved USD 100 million or more.[29] These percentages relate only to cases with quantified monetary relief, not the entire caseload.[30]
Unlike earlier reports, which recorded only the initial claim values stated in arbitration requests, the 2025 figures also include subsequent quantification of claims and counterclaims through the end of June 2026.[31] The Report expressly states that the resulting dispute-value distribution is not directly comparable with figures in previous annual reports.[32]
5. Arbitrator Appointments and Diversity
During 2025, the LCIA made 403 appointments of 304 individual arbitrators across 204 LCIA Rules arbitrations, including three emergency arbitrator appointments and two replacement appointments. Among tribunals constituted during the year, sole arbitrators accounted for 50.5% and three-member tribunals for 49.5%, making 2025 the first year in the five-year period shown in which sole arbitrators represented the larger share.[33] These figures count fully constituted tribunals, rather than individual arbitrator appointments.[34]
The LCIA Court (the “Court”) selected arbitrators for 42% of appointments, parties for 43%, and co-arbitrators for 15%. Formal appointment is made by the Court following review of the candidate’s independence, impartiality and availability.[35]
Arbitrators of 45 nationalities were appointed, and non-British arbitrators received 211 of the 403 appointments, or 52%, compared with 45% in 2024. This was the first year in which non-British arbitrators received a majority of appointments.[36] Non-British arbitrators accounted for 75% of LCIA Court selections, 42% of co-arbitrator selections and 34% of party selections.[37]
Women received 155 appointments, representing 38% of all appointments, up from 33% in 2024 and the highest proportion since the LCIA began reporting diversity statistics.[38] Women accounted for 49% of Court selections, 44% of co-arbitrator selections and 27% of party selections, with each proportion increasing from 2024. Three-quarters of three-member tribunals constituted in 2025 included at least one woman.[39]
First-time LCIA appointees accounted for 22% of appointments, compared with 19% in 2024, and appeared on 47% of three-member tribunals constituted during the year. This category does not necessarily identify arbitrators new to arbitration: it covers individuals not previously appointed by the Court in an LCIA Rules arbitration, including experienced arbitrators who have served under other rules or in ad hoc proceedings.[40]
Separately, tribunals made 29 appointments of tribunal secretaries, compared with 57 in 2024; 69% of the 2025 appointments were of women.[41]
6. Institutional Responsiveness and Urgent Procedures
The LCIA Secretariat acknowledged 87% of arbitration requests on the same or next business day and sent substantive first letters within three business days in 96% of cases. Both acknowledgement and substantive first correspondence had a median turnaround time of one business day.[42]
There were 15 applications for expedited tribunal formation under Article 9A of the LCIA Rules: five were granted and ten rejected. Seven applications were made under Article 9B for emergency arbitrator appointment, of which three were granted, resulting in appointments, and four rejected.[43]
The median time to decide an Article 9A application was five calendar days. For successful applications, the separate median period between the decision and tribunal formation was five calendar days.[44] Article 9B applications were decided in a median of two calendar days, and all three successful applications resulted in an emergency arbitrator being appointed within three days of the Registrar’s receipt of the application.[45]
The two procedures serve different purposes. Expedited formation speeds up the appointment of the tribunal but does not require an accelerated timetable for the entire arbitration. Emergency arbitration involves the appointment of a temporary arbitrator to decide a request for urgent relief. The appointment of an emergency arbitrator does not mean that the requested relief has been granted.[46]
7. Increased Use of Early Determination
Applications for early determination increased from 17 in 2024 to 38 in 2025, more than doubling to a five-year high.[47] Of the 2025 applications, ten were granted, 20 rejected, seven withdrawn or superseded, and one remained pending at the reporting cut-off.[48]
Among applications decided by the reporting cut-off, 33% were granted, compared with 11% in 2024. The 33% figure relates only to decided applications, not all applications filed.[49] Most 2025 applications were submitted before written pleadings or during the written phase of the arbitration.[50]
8. Composite Requests and Related Proceedings
Claimants filed 32 composite requests commencing 76 arbitrations, representing 24% of LCIA Rules arbitrations commenced in 2025.[51] Including other related cases, 107 arbitrations, or 33% of the year’s LCIA Rules caseload, were connected to at least one other LCIA Rules arbitration commenced in 2025. The referral figures therefore should not be understood as a count of wholly unrelated disputes.[52]
During 2025, 44 consolidation applications involving 95 cases were made, and 82% were granted. Of the successful applications, 83% were granted by the Court before appointment of the tribunal. A composite request does not automatically lead to consolidation, but 25 of the 32 filed in 2025 did result in consolidation.[53]
Seven joinder applications were made during the year, of which six were granted and one withdrawn.[54]
9. Interim Relief and Arbitrator Challenges
Parties made 66 applications for interim or conservatory measures across 48 arbitrations in 2025. Of the 66 applications, 25 (38%) were granted or partially granted, 29 were rejected, seven were withdrawn or superseded, and five remained pending at the reporting cut-off. The corresponding proportion granted or partially granted in 2024 was 37%.[55]
Security for costs was the most frequently requested interim measure, accounting for 41 applications. Of the 36 security-for-costs applications decided, 18 were granted or partially granted, corresponding to 50% of decided applications.[56]
Seven arbitrator challenges were filed, compared with ten in 2024; one was upheld and six rejected.[57] The upheld challenge was the first since 2020.[58]
Conclusion
The Report shows that referrals remained relatively stable, while non-British arbitrators and women received a greater share of appointments and applications for early determination increased sharply.[59] Despite the international mix of parties, most arbitrations remained seated in London and governed by the law of England and Wales.[60]
These statistics need to be read carefully. Institutional processing times are not overall arbitration durations; the number of appointments is not the number of individual arbitrators; and grant rates based on decided applications do not cover all applications filed.[61] The Report is useful for understanding tribunal composition and procedural applications, but its overall figures should not be treated as predictions for an individual dispute.
[1] London Court of International Arbitration, Annual Casework Report 2025 (October 2026), PDF p. 2.
[2] Id. p. 4.
[3] Id. pp. 13, 47.
[4] Id. p. 11.
[5] Id. p. 12.
[6] See id. pp. 11-12.
[7] Id. p. 14.
[8] Id. p. 15, fn. 1.
[9] Id. p. 16.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Id. pp. 19-20, Figure 4 and fn. 3.
[14] Id. p. 19.
[15] Id. p. 21.
[16] Id. p. 21, fn. 5.
[17] Id. p. 23, fn. 6.
[18] Id. p. 23.
[19] Id. p. 24, fn. 8.
[20] Id. p. 24.
[21] Id. p. 24, fn. 9.
[22] Id. p. 23.
[23] Id. p. 23, fn. 7.
[24] Id. p. 29, fns. 13-15.
[25] Id. p. 29.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Id. p. 27.
[28] Id. pp. 27-28, fn. 11 and Figure 8.
[29] Id. pp. 27-28, Figure 9 and fn. 12.
[30] See id. p. 27.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Id. p. 33, Figure 11.
[34] Id. p. 33, fn. 16.
[35] Id. p. 34.
[36] Id. p. 35, fn. 18.
[37] Id. p. 35.
[38] Id. p. 39.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Id. p. 43, fn. 19.
[41] Id. p. 45.
[42] Id. p. 13.
[43] Id. p. 46.
[44] Id. p. 47, fn. 21.
[45] Id. p. 47.
[46] See ibid.
[47] Id. p. 49, fn. 22.
[48] Id. p. 49.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Id. p. 50.
[52] See ibid.
[53] Id. p. 50, Figure 24.
[54] Id. p. 51.
[55] Id. p. 52.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Id. p. 48.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Id. pp. 11-12, 35, 39, 49.
[60] Id. pp. 23, 29.
[61] See id. pp. 13, 33, 47, 49, 52.
