Nhu-Hoang Tran Thang is an international arbitration lawyer registered with the Paris bar and based in Geneva, where she founded Astute Dispute Resolution in 2024. Her practice covers both investment treaty and commercial arbitration across a wide range of industries and institutional rules, including the ICC, Swiss Rules and FAI Rules. An active member of the international arbitration community, she holds executive mandates with several arbitral associations and institutions.
In this edition of FAI Insights, Nhu-Hoang shares her practical insights on procedural management in expedited and default proceedings, drawing on her experience on both sides of the table, as counsel and as arbitrator.
In practice, what should a tribunal focus on first when dealing with expedited proceedings or a case where one party does not participate?
The priority is to establish procedural control immediately, while safeguarding due process. Under the FAI Rules, once the case file is transmitted, the sole arbitrator is expected to move swiftly: organize the case management conference promptly and set a clear procedural timetable.
In practice, the first communication to the parties, which is typically expected very shortly after receipt of the file, is critical: it should already address methods of communication, propose dates for the case management conference and plan the discussion of the timetable. Where applicable, the advance on costs should also be addressed in this initial communication.
In default situations, that early stage also requires particular attention to proper notifications of the defaulting party. It is essential to ensure that all communications can be evidenced. My usual practice is to use both electronic and hard copy notifications, unless the parties have made other arrangements in their contract. Although an emailed request for arbitration may be considered as valid under the relevant rules, it’s not uncommon for a subsequent hard copy notification by the Tribunal to prompt a response from the defaulting party, because the institution’s email may have ended up in a spam folder or otherwise gone unnoticed.
Turning to expedited procedures, what does effective case management look like from a tribunal’s perspective when working under compressed timelines?
Effective case management is not simply about compressing timelines; it is about making early, deliberate procedural choices. Article 25 of the FAI Rules for Expedited Arbitration (the “FAI Expedited Rules”) gives the sole arbitrator the flexibility to actively shape the proceedings, and that discretion should be used from the outset.
In practice, this means structuring submissions tightly, considering early on whether a hearing is necessary, and making full use of tools such as the cut-off date to avoid procedural drift (see FAI Expedited Rules, Article 34). It also requires firmness in enforcing the timetable, while remaining attentive to due process considerations.
A notable feature of expedited proceedings is the flexibility concerning the reasoning of the award (see FAI Expedited Rules, Article 41.1). Allowing the arbitrator to omit reasons unless specifically requested enables the level of detail to be tailored as appropriate. This approach aligns with the goal of efficiency and reflects a growing preference for prompt resolution over procedural sophistication.
In cases where one party does not participate, what are the key steps to ensure due process and the enforceability of the award?
Non-participation does not simplify the tribunal’s task; it requires more discipline. The starting point is that no inference can be drawn from a party’s silence. The tribunal must still be satisfied that it has jurisdiction and that the claims are substantiated.
The following elements are key in practice:
First, ensuring proper notification throughout the proceedings and being able to demonstrate it clearly in the procedural record.
Second, ensuring that the non-participating party can intervene at any stage by addressing all communications to both parties and including them in every procedural step. Arbitrators should also remain alert to partial defaults, where a party engages sporadically but fails to comply with procedural rules or deadlines. The core principle is to balance fairness with firmness, upholding due process without being deterred by late interventions from parties who have previously defaulted after proper notification.
Third, actively testing the participating party’s case. This may in certain circumstances involve identifying obvious issues affecting jurisdiction or the merits. The Tribunal does not replace the absent party, but it must ensure that the claims are sufficiently examined and that may involve raising obvious defenses to the claims or issues of jurisdiction sua sponte.
What practical techniques have you found particularly effective in expedited and default situations?
Procedural discipline is essential. Even more crucially than in standard arbitrations, arbitrators in expedited proceedings should start drafting the award as soon as the proceedings commence, and continuously update it as the procedure progresses.
In default scenarios, the arbitrator should have a preliminary outline of their decision as early as possible. This enables the arbitrator to raise unaddressed questions and request further information or evidence from the participating party as necessary without delay.
Because I also act as counsel, I understand that it can be difficult to relinquish certain procedural steps, such as holding a hearing or document production, at the outset of the proceedings. In such cases, it is possible to adopt streamlined timetables while preserving the option to introduce additional procedural steps if specifically requested at later stages. Further case management conferences can also be scheduled to revisit the procedure as the case evolves, once the initial uncertainties have been clarified.
Are there particular features of the FAI Arbitration Rules that you find especially helpful in practice?
The FAI expedited framework strikes a very effective balance between clarity and flexibility. The Rules are structured in a way that provides concrete guidance on the structure of the proceedings (see e.g. FAI Expedited Rules, Article 31 on written submissions and their content), while leaving sufficient discretion to adapt the procedure to the needs of the case (Article 25.1).
The fact that the FAI Arbitration Rules, including the Expedited Rules, include explicit provisions on default scenarios and the cut-off date further support arbitrators’ proactive management of the case.
The Arbitrator’s Guidelines are also a valuable complement, as they translate the Rules into actionable guidance.
In my experience, this combination creates an environment that is both predictable for users and adaptable in practice, which is particularly important in more challenging situations such as non-participation.
Looking ahead, do you see any developments that may influence how tribunals handle expedited proceedings or non-participation?
The track record of expedited arbitration is now well established, and it clearly shows that this offering by arbitral institutions has been a success.
Users are seeking speed, which is both unsurprising and legitimate: a swift resolution through a streamlined procedure is closer to arbitration’s original promise. In that sense, the strong uptake of expedited procedures reflects a return to what users initially expected from arbitration.
This evolution, driven in large part by institutions such as the FAI, inevitably places greater pressure on arbitrators, who must operate within tighter timelines and with increased financial and reputational stakes.
That said, I see this development as a positive one. It encourages arbitrators to be more decisive and more accountable in the way they conduct proceedings. Ultimately, the success of streamlined procedures should lead to better arbitration — and to better arbitrators.
