In January 2026 a Rouen grain trader and a Turkish shipowner fall out over a voyage charterparty for 25,000 tonnes of wheat from Rouen to Alexandria. Disputed demurrage, reservations about the condition of the holds, freight withheld: the owner’s claim reaches one million euros. The charterparty, signed on a Synacomex form, refers disputes to the Chambre arbitrale maritime de Paris. A sole arbitrator will decide, and the scale of 16 June 2022 fixes in advance what that will cost: 27,540 euros excluding tax, chamber fees and arbitrator’s fees combined. Before the ICC the same case would have cost 57,613 euros on average. Before the LCIA, nobody could have given a figure before the end.
This page examines the two maritime chambers in the table, the CAMP and the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration, compares them with generalist institutions on a one million euro charterparty dispute, then on a 100,000 euro one, says when a maritime chamber stops being the right choice, how to draft a charterparty clause, and what the LMAA of London represents.
1. The CAMP: a global scale that includes the arbitrators
The Chambre arbitrale maritime de Paris applies rules and a scale in force since 16 June 2022. The scale covers the chamber’s fees and the arbitrators’ fees globally, in a single figure excluding tax, VAT in addition; only CIETAC does the same. The request is accompanied by an initial deposit of 2,000 euros excluding tax, set off; on withdrawal the chamber keeps 2,000 euros excluding tax as file fees; further deposits are called at 50 per cent from each party.
The scale is built in bands for a three member tribunal, the percentage applying only to the part of the dispute above the bottom of the band: a flat 3,850 euros up to 14,999 euros, then 3,850 euros plus 11 per cent up to 49,999 euros, 7,700 euros plus 8.2 per cent up to 99,999 euros, 11,800 euros plus 7 per cent up to 199,999 euros, 18,800 euros plus 3.6 per cent up to 499,999 euros, 29,600 euros plus 3.26 per cent up to 999,999 euros, 45,900 euros plus 0.66 per cent up to 2,999,999 euros, 59,100 euros plus 0.5 per cent up to 7,499,999 euros, and beyond that 81,600 euros plus a percentage fixed by the president. A sole arbitrator receives 60 per cent of the scale.
For one million euros the amount sits at the bottom of its band and the excess is nil: 45,900 euros excluding tax with three arbitrators, 27,540 euros excluding tax with a sole arbitrator. For 100,000 euros, the same mechanism: 11,800 euros with three, 7,080 euros with one. Below 15,000 euros, small claims before a sole arbitrator are subject to a flat fee: 1,650 euros below 7,500 euros, 2,450 euros from 7,500 to 15,000 euros.
Three mechanisms complete it. The expedited procedure of article XXIV of the Rules has no threshold: it applies where the circumstances justify it, with one round of submissions in a month and a sole arbitrator’s award within 45 days, extendable by 15. The second tier of article XVII is available only where the principal claim exceeds 30,000 euros. And conciliation or withdrawal gives rise to a reduction of 40 or 80 per cent of the scale depending on the stage. At the CAMP, settling early is worth something.
2. The SCMA: the institution that charges nothing
The Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration applies the fourth edition of its Arbitration Rules, in force since 1 January 2022, a Schedule of Fees and Standard Terms of Appointment to which Rule 40 refers. Its model is the opposite of the CAMP’s. The SCMA charges no filing or administration fee, does not manage the proceedings, does not fix fees, does not scrutinise the award. It offers rules, a panel and services on demand: 1,500 Singapore dollars for an appointment by its president under Rule 8.6, 4,000 Singapore dollars for a challenge, 150 Singapore dollars for authentication or certification, 1,200 Singapore dollars a year where the chamber holds deposited funds.
The Standard Terms of Appointment provide that the arbitrator is paid at such hourly or daily rates as agreed with the appointing party before appointment, travel time at half rate, a reasonable appointment fee being possible, and a cancellation charge of 30, 50 or 100 per cent of the daily rate depending on notice. Nothing is published about the level of those rates. It is the London logic in Singapore: the institution is a framework, the market sets the price. For one million euros, the table shows only the arbitrator’s fees at that rate, plus 1,024 euros if the president had to appoint.
The SCMA stands out for its expedited procedure, that of Rule 44, which replaced the Small Claims Procedure, applicable where claim and counterclaim, excluding interest and costs, do not exceed 300,000 US dollars. Sole arbitrator, documents only unless a hearing is thought necessary, award within 21 days. Above all it caps what others leave open: the arbitrator’s fees are limited to 10,000 dollars up to 200,000 dollars in dispute, then 10,000 dollars plus 5 per cent of the excess, with a maximum of 15,000 dollars; recoverable legal costs are limited to 15,000 dollars up to 200,000 dollars, then 15,000 dollars plus 5 per cent of the excess, with a maximum of 20,000 dollars. No other institution in the table does this. For collisions, the SEADOCC of Rule 45 provides a regime with no threshold or flat fee, at hourly rates, with an award on liability within five months.
3. One million euros, then one hundred thousand: four institutions side by side
Take the Rouen dispute again, one million euros, sole arbitrator. At the CAMP, 27,540 euros excluding tax. At the ICC, under the Schedule of Fees of 1 June 2026, the 5,000 dollar filing fee, 6,000 dollars including VAT for a party established in France, is set off against the advance; administrative expenses are 23,512 dollars; the sole arbitrator receives between 13,641 and 60,551 euros, average 37,097 euros. Institution and arbitrator together: 34,158 euros at the minimum, 57,613 euros on average, 81,068 euros at the maximum. Below 4 million dollars the expedited procedure of Appendix V applies automatically to agreements concluded since 1 June 2026, fees reduced by 20 per cent: 31,430, 50,194 or 68,957 euros. At the LCIA, the 1,950 pound registration fee is not set off, the arbitrator charges between 250 and 650 pounds an hour, and the Costs and Duration report of 30 December 2024 gives a median of 119,000 dollars between one and ten million dollars, over twenty months. At the SCMA, the arbitrator’s fees at their rate, and nothing else.
Twice the price between the CAMP and the ICC average, four times with the LCIA median. On a one million euro charter between a French shipper and a Mediterranean owner, the CAMP with a sole arbitrator is the right choice, without reservation.
Move down to 100,000 euros. In April 2026 a Singapore time charterer withholds that amount from the hire of a Norwegian bulk carrier for nine days off hire at Port Kelang attributed to a crane breakdown; the owner disputes the off hire. At the CAMP a sole arbitrator costs 7,080 euros excluding tax. At the SCMA the dispute stays below the 200,000 dollars of Rule 44: fees capped at 10,000 dollars, recoverable legal costs capped at 15,000 dollars, award within 21 days, no institutional fee apart from the 1,500 Singapore dollars of an appointment by the president. At the LCIA the only figure available is the observed median below one million dollars, 26,000 dollars over twelve months, more than three times the CAMP for a case that does not require three times the work. At the ICC the 5,000 dollar filing fee alone exceeds half the CAMP’s full scale. A 100,000 euro charterparty dispute has no business before a generalist institution.
4. When a maritime chamber stops being the right choice
A maritime chamber is designed for a two party dispute, on a single contract, between professionals of the sector. Outside that frame its advantages melt away. First case, multiple parties. A chain of charterparties, owner, time charterer, sub charterer and bill of lading holder, generates parallel proceedings whose awards may contradict one another. The ICC and LCIA rules organise joinder and third party intervention; the SCMA, which does not administer, leaves the question to the arbitrators. Beyond two links, consistency of awards is worth more than the difference in scale.
Second case, the place of enforcement. A CAMP award made in Paris is enforced in France through the code of civil procedure and, elsewhere, through the New York Convention of 1958. That is enough in Europe and on the major places. It becomes uncertain where the only attachable assets are a vessel calling at ports where the Convention is applied reluctantly; the ICC, or HKIAC for mainland China, then offer a better chance. Third case, the most ordinary: the counterparty refuses. A Greek owner accepts London without discussion and asks what the CAMP is for. The French drafter then chooses between imposing Paris at the price of a negotiation, or obtaining a sole arbitrator and a neutral seat.
Fourth case, the mixed dispute. In May 2025 a French owner orders an offshore vessel from a Dutch yard, financed by a German bank’s lease; late delivery triggers penalties, acceleration and a dispute about the refund guarantee. That is construction law, banking law and security interests, with three parties two of which are strangers to transport; the ICC or the LCIA are better placed. Fifth case, the available arbitrators. The pool of a maritime chamber is that of the sector’s practitioners, masters, brokers, surveyors, maritime lawyers, and that is its strength; for a dispute requiring a financial law specialist or a Chinese speaking arbitrator, it is narrow. You do not choose a chamber, you choose your arbitrators. If they are not on the list, change chamber.
5. Drafting the maritime clause: eight decisions and the standard forms
The arbitration clause of a charterparty settles eight points, and each commands a cost. The institution first, designated by its exact name, and not maritime arbitration in Paris, a formula that opens a dispute about jurisdiction before the one about the merits. The seat next, which fixes the law of the arbitration, the supporting judge and the remedies: in Paris, the application to set aside of articles 1518 and following of the code of civil procedure; in London, review under the Arbitration Act 1996 as amended by the Arbitration Act 2025. The language, which commands translation costs and the pool of arbitrators: a CAMP clause in English is possible, it narrows the pool. The number of arbitrators: 27,540 or 45,900 euros excluding tax at the CAMP for one million euros.
Then the expedited regime. At the CAMP it has no threshold and depends on the circumstances, so the clause may stipulate it in advance for demurrage or freight disputes; at the SCMA it applies below 300,000 dollars, and the clause may extend or exclude it. The law of the contract, very often English law for a charterparty, even with a Paris seat: the combination is lawful and common. The law of the arbitration agreement itself, distinct from the previous one: French case law assesses the validity of the clause under substantive rules of international arbitration, without going through a national law, while the English reform of 2025 designates the law of the seat unless otherwise stipulated; a clause that fixes it avoids the debate. The place of enforcement finally, which can on its own rule Paris out.
Standard forms do part of that work. BIMCO forms carry a law and arbitration clause offering a choice between several places, London first, Singapore among them, each with its governing law; the Synacomex form, used for grain out of French ports, refers to the CAMP, which publishes its own model clause. The trap is the unticked box: on a BIMCO form, the absence of a choice sends the parties to the default place, almost always London, and the French shipper discovers at the first dispute that it chose the LMAA without knowing. Forms are not clauses; they are questionnaires.
6. London, the LMAA and the place of Paris
The London Maritime Arbitrators Association remains the reference of the world market for chartering, shipbuilding and marine insurance, and most BIMCO forms designate it by default. It does not appear in our table, for a reason of method: the LMAA does not administer arbitrations and publishes no scale; it is an association of arbitrators whose Terms fix the conditions of the appointment, for time spent, at their own rates, with lighter procedures for small amounts. This page gives no figure for it, having verified none; the reader should refer to the Terms in force.
Without figures, one can say what London offers and what it costs: a pool of arbitrators without equal, the English law of most charterparties, and immediate acceptability to any counterparty. It costs proceedings in English, under a foreign arbitration law, English counsel, London hourly rates and a bill nobody knows at signature. That makes sense in a multi million dispute with a counterparty that will accept nothing else. None at all in a demurrage dispute.
Paris has three underestimated advantages. A published global scale, which allows the client to be told before filing what the arbitration will cost, arbitrators included. An international arbitration law, that of articles 1504 and following of the code of civil procedure, whose liberality is recognised. And arbitrators drawn from the sector. It has one real weakness, impossible to measure: nobody publishes the number of CAMP cases by value band, and it is unknown whether it handles enough multi million disputes for its arbitrators to be as practised as London’s. It remains that, below three million euros and between European parties, Paris offers the best ratio of cost, competence and predictability. That is not a patriotic judgement. It is a calculation.
Frequently asked questions
Can a charterparty governed by English law provide for CAMP arbitration in Paris
Yes. The law of the contract and the seat of the arbitration are two independent choices. A charterparty governed by English law may be submitted to the Chambre arbitrale maritime de Paris, seat in Paris, and the award will be reviewed under French international arbitration law. The only point to watch is choosing arbitrators able to apply the English law of charterparties, which the chamber’s list allows for the ordinary questions of demurrage and cargo damage.
Should the CAMP second tier be excluded in the clause
The second tier of article XVII is available only where the principal claim exceeds 30,000 euros; it allows the award to be reconsidered within the chamber. It is a safeguard against an aberrant award, but also a delay and a cost for the party that won at first instance. In a demurrage or freight dispute, where speed of collection matters more than perfection of the decision, the clause is better waiving it expressly. In a multi million dispute before a sole arbitrator, it stands in for a three member tribunal and deserves to be kept.
How are an SCMA arbitrator’s fees fixed, and can they be negotiated
They are agreed between the arbitrator and the appointing party before appointment, as an hourly or daily rate, under the Standard Terms of Appointment. The appointing party may compare several candidates from the panel and agree an overall cap. Outside the expedited procedure no scale limits those fees; below 300,000 dollars, Rule 44 caps them at 10,000 dollars up to 200,000 dollars in dispute and at 15,000 dollars maximum.
Is an award made in Singapore under the SCMA rules enforceable in France
Yes, through the enforcement procedure of articles 1514 and following of the code of civil procedure, France and Singapore both being parties to the New York Convention of 1958. The judge checks the existence of the award and the absence of manifest conflict with international public policy. That the SCMA does not administer the proceedings is irrelevant: the award is the tribunal’s, and its authentication by the chamber, charged at 150 Singapore dollars, facilitates production of the documents. The difficulty is not French; it lies in where the debtor’s assets are.
Is the CAMP expedited procedure chosen in the clause or when the dispute arises
Both. Article XXIV of the Rules fixes no threshold and provides for the expedited procedure where the circumstances justify it, which leaves the assessment to the chamber when the dispute arises. Nothing prevents the parties from stipulating it in advance in the clause, for a category of disputes or for all of them. The regime, submissions in one month and an award within 45 days, suits a demurrage or freight dispute whose documents are assembled, and suits badly a damage dispute requiring adversarial expert evidence.