A finance department asks what an ICC arbitration costs for a 3 million dollar dispute. The honest answer is two numbers a long way apart, because the ICC fixes arbitrators’ fees within a range whose spread, at that level, runs from 25,000 to 114,000 dollars for a sole arbitrator. The budget is therefore not a figure, it is an interval whose final position depends on how the proceedings are run.
This page prices the three cost items of an ICC arbitration under the scale applicable since 1 June 2026: the filing fee, the Court’s administrative expenses, and the arbitrators’ fees. It gives three worked budgets, explains the reduction available in expedited proceedings, the cost of emergency arbitrator proceedings, and how the final burden is allocated between the parties.
1. The three items, and the one nobody budgets for
The costs of the arbitration within the meaning of the Rules comprise the arbitrators’ fees and expenses and the ICC administrative expenses, together with, where applicable, the fees of experts appointed by the tribunal. That is what the Court fixes and what the advances cover. The scale annexed to the Rules allows them to be calculated precisely as soon as the request is filed, which is one of the genuine advantages of institutional over ad hoc arbitration.
Legal costs, meaning counsel, party appointed experts and witnesses, are not part of that calculation and are not advanced to the institution. Yet in the ICC’s own statistics, as in everyday experience, they represent by far the largest share of the total, frequently four to five times the sum of the other two items. A company that budgets only for the advance on costs is out by an order of magnitude.
The third item is internal cost, and it is almost always missing from the table. An arbitration mobilises operational teams to reconstruct the facts, search documents, prepare witnesses and attend hearings. On a construction or industrial supply dispute that means hundreds of hours taken from the business, and it is often this invisible cost that in truth decides whether to settle.
2. The filing fee and how advances work
The claimant pays a filing fee of 5,000 dollars when submitting its request for arbitration, and the same amount is payable by any party applying to join an additional party (articles 5(4) and 8(3) of the Rules, article 2 of the scale). That amount rises to 6,000 dollars where French value added tax applies, which covers claimants established in France. It is non refundable, and its payment conditions notification of the request to the respondent.
The fee is a first advance on administrative expenses and is therefore set off against them. Next comes the provisional advance fixed by the Secretary General, then the global advance fixed by the Court in the light of the claims and counterclaims, in principle in equal shares between claimant and respondent. Where one party fails to pay its share, the other may substitute for it so that the proceedings can continue, and may seek reimbursement.
One provision is worth flagging to treasurers. Where the advance exceeds 500,000 dollars, a bank guarantee may be provided for all or part of the amount above that threshold, instead of a cash payment (article 40(8)(a) of the Rules and article 4 of the scale). On a high value dispute, the difference in cash tied up for two years is far from negligible.
3. Administrative expenses: band by band, and no more cap
The Court’s administrative expenses are calculated progressively. The percentage corresponding to each band of the amount in dispute is applied to that band, and the results are added, exactly like a tax scale. The first band, up to 50,000 dollars, gives a fixed amount of 5,000 dollars; the following bands are expressed as decreasing percentages, from 2.5840 % between 100,001 and 200,000 dollars down to 0.0123 % between 80,000,001 and 515,000,000 dollars.
The point to retain is the disappearance of the cap. The figure of 150,000 dollars, still presented almost everywhere as the maximum of ICC administrative expenses, belongs to the 2017 scale and no longer applies. The scale applicable since 1 June 2026 has no cap in the strict sense: above 515 million dollars in dispute, administrative expenses become a flat 180,000 dollars. Below that threshold, the band by band calculation applies in full.
That scale applies to all proceedings commenced on or after 1 June 2026, whatever version of the Rules governs them. Proceedings started today under a 2018 clause therefore fall under the 2026 scale, even if they are conducted under the earlier Rules by agreement of the parties. Confusing the date of the clause with the date of filing is the commonest error in budget forecasts.
4. Arbitrators’ fees: a range, and who sets it
Arbitrators’ fees follow the same band by band calculation, but with two grids, one giving a minimum and the other a maximum. The first band, up to 50,000 dollars, runs from 3,000 dollars to 18.0200 %; the band between 1,000,001 and 2,000,000 dollars runs from 0.6890 % to 3.6040 %; the band above 500 million runs from 0.0100 % to 0.0400 %. The gap between floor and ceiling is therefore a factor of four to five depending on the band.
It is the Court, not the arbitrator, that fixes the amount within that range. It takes account of the tribunal’s diligence and efficiency, the time spent, the speed of the proceedings and the complexity of the dispute. A tribunal that renders its award on time and runs a tight process sits lower in the range; a tribunal whose delay is unjustified risks a reduction, the Court maintaining that practice under the 2026 Rules.
The number of arbitrators multiplies this item mechanically. The amounts derived from the scale are per arbitrator, so a three member tribunal triples the line. That is where most of the budget gap between ordinary proceedings with three arbitrators and expedited proceedings with a sole arbitrator lies, far more than in administrative expenses, which are identical in both cases.
5. Three worked budgets
For a 1 million dollar dispute, administrative expenses come to about 22,400 dollars. A sole arbitrator’s fees run from 14,600 to 64,100 dollars, a three member tribunal from 43,900 to 192,400 dollars. Total institutional cost therefore sits between 37,000 and 86,500 dollars with one arbitrator, and between 66,300 and 214,800 dollars with three, before any legal costs.
For a 3 million dollar dispute, administrative expenses reach about 34,300 dollars. A sole arbitrator costs from 25,300 to 114,100 dollars, three arbitrators from 75,800 to 342,200 dollars. The institutional total therefore runs from 59,600 to 148,400 dollars with one arbitrator, and from 110,100 to 376,500 dollars with three. It is this doubling, at identical stakes, that gives the expedited procedure threshold its economic weight.
For a 20 million dollar dispute, administrative expenses come to about 80,500 dollars, a sole arbitrator’s fees from 45,600 to 211,500 dollars and three arbitrators’ fees from 136,700 to 634,500 dollars. Note in passing how the scale tapers: the amount in dispute is multiplied by nearly seven between the second and third examples, the institutional cost by less than two. ICC arbitration is proportionally expensive on small disputes and reasonable on large ones, which explains the 5 million dollar median observed across new cases in 2025.
These figures are direct calculations from the scale, rounded, and they do not replace a simulation on the actual case. The cost calculator published by the ICC applies the same grids to the amount in dispute and the number of arbitrators, and takes account of the applicable procedure.
6. The expedited procedure and its reduced fee grid
The expedited procedure and highly expedited arbitration benefit from a separate arbitrator fee grid, reduced by about twenty per cent against the ordinary grid across all bands. The minimum of the first band thus falls from 3,000 to 2,400 dollars, and the maximum from 18.0200 % to 14.4160 %. Administrative expenses do not change: they follow the ordinary scale whatever the procedure.
On a 3 million dollar dispute on the expedited track, a sole arbitrator’s fees therefore run from 20,200 to 91,300 dollars, against 25,300 to 114,100 dollars in ordinary proceedings. The saving on that line alone is around twenty per cent, but the real saving lies elsewhere: in the imposed sole arbitrator, the largely documentary process and the award rendered within six months of the case management conference, all of which mechanically compress legal costs.
The full calculation must factor in procedural risk. A tight process reduces cost and also reduces the scope for a heavy technical demonstration. On a supply dispute where proving the defect requires adversarial expert evidence, the apparent saving is paid for in probability of success. The right balance between those two effects is struck on the facts of the case, and it is prepared when the clause is drafted.
7. What urgency costs, and the ancillary items
Emergency arbitrator proceedings carry a flat amount of 50,000 dollars, paid by the applicant with its application, comprising 12,500 dollars of ICC administrative expenses and 37,500 dollars of the emergency arbitrator’s fees and expenses (article 3 of the scale, applying article 8(1) of Appendix IV). The non refundable part of the administrative expenses is 5,000 dollars. The amount may be increased by the President of the Court in the light of the nature of the case and the work done. With French value added tax, the ICC states 52,500 dollars.
Other items are added without appearing in the scale. Arbitrators’ travel and accommodation, hearing room hire, transcription and interpretation, the fees of any tribunal appointed expert, and the administration of electronic document production. On a five day hearing with simultaneous interpretation, those costs run into tens of thousands of euros, and they are paid out of the advance.
The value added tax question deserves to be raised early. ICC administrative expenses may be subject to French tax depending on the position of the party liable, which explains the gap between 5,000 and 6,000 dollars on the filing fee, and between 50,000 and 52,500 dollars on the emergency arbitrator. Treatment depends on the status and place of establishment of the party, and it is checked with the tax department rather than in a general table.
8. Who pays in the end
The final award decides the definitive burden of the costs of the arbitration fixed by the Court, and their allocation between the parties. The tribunal may also rule on costs at any stage and order their payment, taking account of such circumstances as it considers appropriate, first among them the parties’ conduct during the proceedings (article 41(3) of the Rules).
That regard for conduct is not a formula. An inflated claim that drove the advance far above what the dispute justified, obstructed document production, repeated adjournments obtained without reason, an application for early determination pursued without serious prospects, all of it resurfaces in the final allocation. At equal stakes, the party that ran the case economically bears a lighter burden, whatever the outcome on the merits.
For a company, the consequence is that the budget is steered during the proceedings, not at the moment it is drawn up. The decisions that weigh most on final cost, the number of arbitrators, the scope of document production, recourse to expert evidence, the length of the hearing, are taken in the first weeks, at the case management conference. They are case specific judgements that depend on the structure of the dispute.
Frequently asked questions
Is the 5,000 dollar filing fee lost if the case settles before the award
Yes. That amount is non refundable whatever the outcome, and it is set off against ICC administrative expenses. Advances paid beyond what is used are however returned to the parties after closure, following the allocation fixed by the tribunal in its decision on costs. An early settlement therefore remains far preferable financially.
Why does the ICC estimate differ from the advance actually called
Because the calculation depends on the amount in dispute as assessed at a given moment, counterclaims included. A counterclaim filed by the respondent increases the base and therefore the advance, sometimes dramatically. The Court readjusts the advance during the proceedings as the base changes, and those readjustments are the leading source of divergence between the initial forecast and actual spend.
Can you avoid advancing the share of a respondent that does not pay
You can refuse, but the proceedings are then suspended and, failing regularisation, the claims concerned are deemed withdrawn, which amounts to abandoning them. In practice a claimant who wants an award substitutes for the defaulting respondent and seeks reimbursement, which tribunals generally grant in their decision on costs. That advance weighs on cash flow for the whole of the proceedings.
Does third party funding change the budget
It shifts the burden without removing it, the funder advancing the costs in return for a share of the proceeds of the award. The 2026 Rules require disclosure of the existence of a third party with an economic interest in the outcome, so that arbitrators’ conflicts of interest can be checked. The effective cost to the company is then measured as a percentage of recovery rather than as immediate expenditure, which calls for a case by case comparison.
Are legal fees reimbursed by the losing party
The arbitral tribunal decides the allocation of the reasonable costs incurred by the parties for their defence, and most often does so in favour of the successful party, without reimbursing them in full. Reasonableness is assessed against the stakes and complexity of the dispute, and a case run with disproportionate resources will not be reimbursed at what it cost.