Discretion to Doctrine: The Institutionalization of Summary Dismissal in International Arbitration

Introduction

The United Kingdom recently introduced[i] Section 39A in the Arbitration Act[ii], expressly empowering tribunals seated in England (or Wales or Northern Ireland) to “make an award on a summary basis”, thereby reaffirming the importance[iii] of summary dismissals in International Arbitration.  Summary dismissal is a distinct procedure that aims to simplify certain aspects of Arbitration by allowing a party to apply to the tribunal for a decision without a full evidentiary hearing[iv]. This allows the arbitrators to dismiss claims or defences if they are either “manifestly without legal merit” or “outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal” at an early stage, rather than allowing the arbitral process to run its full course.

The growth of summary dismissals is a direct result of the increasing dissatisfaction with a system that was designed to offer time and cost-effective resolutions. In contrast to its ideals, the 2025 International Arbitration Survey[v] recognized the “slow, rigid and costly” nature of arbitration as its biggest challenge. As a result, almost a majority of respondents to the survey (statistically: 49%) voted in favour of Summary Dismissals as the top means to improve efficiency. This signifies a shift and a booming international trend[vi] towards efficiency; it is the need of the hour for arbitral bodies to prune hopeless issues early rather than incurring the full cost and time.

The United Kingdom’s newest amendment codifies this shift. Section 39A authorizes the tribunals, on a party’s application, to summarily dismiss any claim or defence if it has no “real prospect of success”[vii]. This aligns arbitration with the common law practice, primarily intending to improve the overall efficiency of proceedings.  In light of the recent global shift and India’s aim of becoming the next arbitration hub, there may exist a high probability that the arbitration in India will benefit from the introduction of a summary dismissal provision.

In the course of this blog, the authors examine the developing practice of incorporating summary dismissal provisions in international arbitration rules, while looking at the existing jurisprudence. By doing the same, a conclusion seeks to be drawn to assess how summary dismissals could fit into India’s Arbitration framework, where efficiency and procedural economy are increasingly important.

The Existing Jurisprudence and Global Best Standards

The concept of summary dismissals in international arbitration has evolved over the past two decades. Its origin can be traced back to October 2004, when the International Centre for Settlement of Disputes (ICSID) released a working paper named “Possible Improvements of the Framework for ICSID Arbitration”[viii], proposing the introduction of a procedure that allows arbitrators to strike out unmeritorious claims at an early stage. This subsequently led to the adoption of summary dismissal for the first time, in the form of Rule 41(5) of the ICSID rules in 2006[ix].

Following ICSID’s lead on the same, the practice of summary dismissals has perpetually gained acceptance among commercial arbitrations. In the subsequent 10 years, almost 22 tribunals[x] started dealing with this new mechanism. For instance, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) introduced Rule 29[xi] in its 2016 Rules, which was further refined earlier this year to impose stricter thresholds. The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) followed by introducing summary dismissals through Article 43[xii] in the Amendment Rules of 2024, adding another layer of dismissal on a claim being “legally insufficient to sustain an award”.

Similar tendencies can be observed in other arbitral systems. The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) allows for an expedited disposal of claims “without any legal basis”[xiii], while the ICC affirmed this power under Article 22 of the ICC Rules[xiv] by way of a practice note in 2017. The most recent, and perhaps the most notable, is the statutory development under the UK Legislation. Taken together, these rules highlight an important development of a global community that is shifting towards the usage of summary dismissals as a routine procedure. The same is corroborated by SIAC’s latest report[xv], which shows a rise in the number of applications being filed for summary dismissals.

However, despite the successful rise, there have been prominent concerns. Arbitrators have often approached summary dismissals with great caution, being wary of possibly violating due process[xvi], as the dismissals are without a full and proper hearing. As a result, the statistics show that SIAC has had only a 42% success rate, and LCIA and ICSID have averaged at a low 15% of full grants of the total summary dismissal applications filed.[xvii] Out of the granted applications, there have been instances, like in Walkinshaw v. Diniz[xviii], when courts have set aside summary awards, highlighting judicial skepticism towards the same.

Nonetheless, global best practices reveal a more careful approach. Most institutions have adopted a high threshold[xix] to ensure that only claims without any real possibility of success, if run through the full course, are struck out. Envisioning claims as “manifestly without legal merit” or “no real prospect of success” are legal safeguards in place, along with procedural safeguards such as notice period and opportunity to respond, allowing the due process paranoia to subside. While timelines among institutional rules may be different, the basic rationale remains the same: to streamline procedures while balancing them with fairness. Taken collectively, these mechanisms pave the way for a safer future for International Arbitration, one that does not sacrifice the integrity of the process.

Examining Summary Dismissal from the Indian Perspective

The concept of Summary dismissal is not novel in the Indian landscape. Its existence can be traced through various statutes. For instance, the Code of Civil Procedure, under Order XXXVII[xx], empowers the court to adopt a summary procedure for suits with respect to negotiable instruments and liquidated damages. However, its application was limited to the suit as a whole and did not allow for addressal on a claim-by-claim basis. To build upon this further, the legislators introduced Order XIII-A[xxi] through the Commercial Courts Act, which allowed for summary judgments in commercial disputes of a specified value, based on specific claims or defences.

The concept of summary dismissal was thus mostly limited to civil and commercial disputes until the MCIA’s recent landmark initiative. The MCIA introduced the 3rd edition of its Arbitration Rules of 2025, which now incorporates summary dismissals by way of Rule 16[xxii]. The rule allows for summary dismissal of claims and defences only on the existence of three specific grounds: first, if they are manifestly without legal merit; second, if they are outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction; and third, if they are unlikely to succeed even if the alleged facts are considered to be true. As is manifestly evident, MCIA’s rules have been inspired by global arbitration practices of SIAC, HKIAC, and LCIA.

The MCIA’s initiative introduced the long-awaited wave of summary dismissal in the Indian Arbitration Framework, thus increasing institutional procedural efficiency and the autonomy of arbitrators. However, there are certain limitations to the applicability and usage of Rule 16 to Indian Arbitration as a whole, primarily because 95% of the Indian Arbitration proceedings are ad hoc[xxiii]. These proceedings are thus governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, not the MCIA Rules. Therefore, such an absence in the primary legislation governing the arbitration proceedings is a matter of growing concern. The apex court in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corporation Private Limited v. Samir Narain Bhojwani[xxiv] emphasized the need for arbitration to become a tool for expeditious, effective, and cost-effective mechanisms for dispute resolution rather than becoming synonymous with the litigation proceedings that are bulky and time-consuming. To achieve this desired outcome, summary dismissals can prove to be a powerful catalyst that will prevent parties from filing vexatious and baseless claims with the intention of prolonging the arbitration proceedings.

However, this inclusion can not be made at the cost of ignoring the challenges that may arise. The biggest question arises when arbitrators find themselves at the edge of a sword in deciding whether they have the inherent procedural power[xxv] to dispose of the claims and defences summarily. If they choose to do so, the parties may challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act[xxvi], citing violations of due process and the absence of a statutory provision granting the arbitrators the power of summary dismissal. This may not only bring delay to the execution of the award but also increase the burden on the courts. Additionally, the summary dismissal procedure should avoid using pecuniary or monetary thresholds for applying to a particular dispute, as in various instances, there might be deliberate attempts by parties to mould the claim value to include or exclude its applicability. If incorporated, the language of such a provision should align with the international best standards delineated to ensure procedural consistency and clarity. 

Conclusion

The incorporation of the concept of summary dismissal in the global arbitration framework is essential for maintaining the alternative dispute resolution mechanism as speedy and cost-effective. The developing practice as reflected in the UK Arbitration Act 2025 and the rules of international arbitral institutions, like SIAC, HKIAC, LCIA, and MCIA, is the result of the growing importance of addressal on a claim-by-claim basis and thus empowering the arbitrator to dismiss the claims that cannot stand the law. Amidst ongoing concerns of the possibility of misuse and due process violations, the inclusion of structured procedural safeguards, such as clear thresholds for dismissal, opportunities to be heard, and reasoned determinations, is necessary to ensure that the principle of audi alteram partem is adhered to while resorting to this expedited procedure.

The introduction of summary dismissal in the Indian arbitration framework, under the MCIA Rules 2025, is inspired by the developing global practice and the need for the Indian arbitration framework to develop conformity with international arbitration standards. In light of this institutional initiative for improving procedural efficiency and cost-effectiveness, the inclusion of summary dismissal provisions within the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, would further strengthen India’s standing as a reliable and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. Thus, the effectiveness of summary dismissal procedures is dependent on the prudent and appropriate implementation. The Summary Dismissal provisions, if incorporated carefully, can greatly shorten arbitral delays, boost investor confidence, and carry forward the objective of arbitration to provide prompt dispute resolution without compromising the fundamental principles of justice when used sensibly and fairly.

---

[i] ‘The English Arbitration Act 2025’ (LCIA) <https://www.lcia.org/the-english-arbitration-act-2025.aspx> accessed 25 December 2025.

[ii] Arbitration Act 2025.

[iii] TwoBirds, ‘Changes to English Arbitration Law Will Require Parties to Reconsider the Provisions’ (Bird & Bird, 2025) <https://www.twobirds.com/en/disputes-plus/shared/insights/2025/uk/changes-to-english-arbitration-law-will-require-parties-to-reconsider-the-provisions> accessed 25 December 2025.

[iv] Chung K, ‘Summary Awards and Expedited Procedures — Strike Out or Home Run?’ (Norton Rose Fulbright, May 2018) <https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-us/knowledge/publications/d4dc14a1/summary-awards-and-expedited-procedures> accessed 25 December 2025.

[v] School of International Arbitration (Queen Mary University of London) and White & Case, ‘2025 International Arbitration Survey: The Path Forward’ (2025) <https://www.qmul.ac.uk/arbitration/media/arbitration/docs/White-Case-QMUL-2025-International-Arbitration-Survey-report.pdf> accessed 25 December 2025.

[vi] ‘Early Dismissal/Summary Disposal of Claims in International Arbitration’ (Lexology) <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ffbd0bbf-c9f8-409d-9821-b68ca3661799> accessed 25 December 2025.

[vii] Withersworldwide, ‘The Arbitration Act 2025: Key Developments for Arbitrations in the UK’ (Withers, 24 February 2025) <https://www.withersworldwide.com/en-gb/insight/read/the-arbitration-act-2025-key-developments-for-arbitrations-in-the-uk> accessed 25 December 2025.

[viii] ICSID Secretariat, ‘Possible Improvements of the Framework of ICSID Arbitration’ (Discussion Paper, 22 October 2004).

[ix] Manifest Lack of Legal Merit’ (ICSID, 2006) <https://icsid.worldbank.org/procedures/arbitration/convention/process/manifest-lack-legal-merit/2006> accessed 25 December 2025.

[x] Lars Markert, ‘Summary Dismissal of ICSID Proceedings’ (2016) 31(3) ICSID Rev 698.

[xi] Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (6th edn, 2016) (SIAC Rules 2016).

[xii] HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules (2024).

[xiii] LCIA Arbitration Rules (2020).

[xiv] Herbert Smith Freehills, ‘ICC Publishes Note on Early Dismissal of Manifestly Unmeritorious Claims or Defences’ (HSF Arbitration Notes, 30 October 2017) <https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/arbitration/2017-11/icc-publishes-note-on-early-dismissal-of-manifestly-unmeritorious-claims-or-defences> accessed 25 December 2025.

[xv] ‘SIAC Reveal Steady Caseload and Wider International Reach’ (Pinsent Masons, 7 March 2016) <https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/siac-reveal-steady-caseload-and-wider-international-reach> accessed 25 December 2025.

[xvi] ‘Due Process Paranoia: When the Safeguard Metamorphoses into the Threat’ (Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 2016) <https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/due-process-paranoia-when-the-safeguard-metamorphoses-into-the-threat/> accessed 25 December 2025.

[xvii] London Court of International Arbitration, LCIA 2024 Annual Casework Report (July 2025) <https://www.lcia.org/lcia/reports.aspx&gt; accessed 16 January 2026; Singapore International Arbitration Centre, Annual Report 2024 (April 2025) <https://iamaeg.net/files/9CED1A31-B0BD-411A-8A8C-840442F014C2.pdf&gt; accessed 16 January 2026

[xviii] Walkinshaw v Diniz [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 237.

[xix] ‘New SIAC Rules: The Need for Refinement’ (JD Supra, 27 June 2016) <https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/new-siac-rules-the-need-for-refinement-79223/> accessed 25 December 2025.

[xx] Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Or 37.

[xxi] Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Or 13A.

[xxii] MCIA Rules of Arbitration (2025).

[xxiii] Maulik Vyas, ‘How India Inc Is Coping with Ineffective Ad Hoc Arbitration and Paving Way for a New Trend’ The Economic Times (Mumbai, 1 July 2015) <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/how-india-inc-is-coping-with-ineffective-ad-hoc-arbitration-and-paving-way-for-a-new-trend/articleshow/47996642.cms> accessed 25 December 2025.

[xxiv] Bombay Slum Redevelopment Corpn (P) Ltd v Samir Narain Bhojwani [2024] 7 SCC 218.

[xxv] ‘Combatting “Due Process Paranoia” and the Evolution of Early Dismissal Procedures in International Arbitration’ (CIArb, 2023) <https://ciarb.net.au/resource/combatting-due-process-paranoia-and-the-evolution-of-early-dismissal-procedures-in-international-arbitration/> accessed 25 December 2025.

[xxvi] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, s 34.

Author(s)