Introduction

What I mean by expedited arbitration (and what I do not)

I often hear expedited arbitration described as if it were simply normal arbitration, but faster. I do not think that is right. That is about as accurate as saying a sprint is just a marathon with better time management. More realistically, it is the same marathon starting with the same optimism and ending with everyone wondering why they agreed to it in the first place.

At a basic level, expedited arbitration is a procedural framework designed to resolve disputes within a compressed timetable. The idea is straightforward enough: fewer procedural steps, tighter deadlines, and a more streamlined path to a final determination.

But in my experience, that description does not quite capture what is really going on. Expedited arbitration is not just a shortened version of the same process. It is a different procedural product altogether. If I try to run it like a conventional arbitration with shorter deadlines, I do not get efficiency. I just get the same inefficiencies packed into a smaller box. It is the same traffic jam, just moving faster, with the added feature that nobody can pull over to check the map.

For me, the defining feature of expedited arbitration is not speed alone. It is selectivity.

• Not everything that can be done will be done;
• Not everything that would be done in a standard arbitration should be done; and
• Perhaps most importantly, not everything the parties want to do will be permitted.

That can come as a surprise. Many parties arrive in expedited proceedings with entirely standard expectations. They expect the usual procedural stages, the usual evidential scope, and the usual opportunities to develop their case over time. What they gradually discover is that the process will not indulge all of that. If a step does not materially assist the tribunal in deciding the dispute, it is likely to be limited, modified or removed.

That, in truth, is where expedited arbitration begins: somewhere between disbelief and reluctant acceptance.

It is also important to be clear about what expedited arbitration does not mean. It does not mean rough justice. It does not mean corner-cutting for its own sake. And it certainly does not mean abandoning fairness in favour of speed. The point is not to do less carelessly. It is to do less, more deliberately.

That shift in emphasis has obvious implications for everyone involved. But it has particular consequences for expert evidence, and those consequences look rather different depending on whether I am considering the issue as an expert or as an arbitrator.

Part I: My perspective as an Expert – One shot, No warm-up

A fundamentally different role

From an expert’s perspective, expedited arbitration changes the job quite significantly.

In a conventional arbitration, expert evidence often develops in stages. There is usually time for reports, replies, meetings, joint statements, clarifications and, occasionally, the luxury of a second thought. Even when the process is demanding, there is generally some room to refine and narrow the evidence as matters progress.

In expedited arbitration, much of that comfort disappears.

Very often, there is no meaningful opportunity for iterative reporting. There may be one principal report and perhaps a limited reply, and then the matter moves quickly towards a decision. In other words, I am not contributing to a process that will gradually refine the expert evidence over time. I am contributing to a decision that is already on its way.

Put bluntly, I do not get a practice run.

Front-loading judgement (and risk)

That has immediate consequences. I have to front-load both analysis and judgement.

• There is limited time to explore alternatives;
• Limited scope to test assumptions in later rounds; and
• Limited opportunity to correct course once the report has been submitted.

That concentrates the mind. In longer timetables, there is sometimes a quiet assumption that anything imperfect can be tidied up later. In expedited arbitration, there is no later.

The first report, therefore, has to do much more work. It needs to:

• Identify the issues clearly;
• Explain the methodology without unnecessary complication;
• Address the real points of contention; and
• Stand on its own.

There is no real value in producing something technically sophisticated but difficult to follow. In expedited arbitration, that is simply a very elegant way of being ignored. It may also be the most expensive way of being ignored, which is rarely the intended outcome.

The discipline of relevance

One of the biggest shifts is the move from completeness to relevance.

Experts are trained, quite properly, to be comprehensive. In expedited proceedings, that instinct needs to be controlled.

The question is not:

What could I include if time were unlimited and budgets were theoretical?

It is:

What does the tribunal actually need to decide this dispute within the time available?

That requires discipline. It means narrowing the issues early, scoping the exercise properly, selecting data carefully, and leaving out material that may be interesting but is not necessary.

That is not comfortable. Experts do not naturally enjoy leaving things out. It feels a little like sending an email with attachments you have not opened. But in expedited arbitration, restraint is often the most valuable contribution I can make.

Alignment (because there is no time not to)

There is also little time for prolonged procedural friction between experts.

In a standard arbitration, alignment may emerge gradually through reports, replies and joint statements. In expedited proceedings, if alignment is going to happen, it needs to happen early.

Where possible, I think experts should:

• Identify common ground quickly;
• Align assumptions where they can; and
• Isolate the real points of disagreement at an early stage

If that does not happen, the tribunal is left with competing datasets, different methodologies and insufficient time to reconcile them. The result is predictable: the tribunal simplifies the issue or gives weight to the evidence that is most accessible, which is not always the same thing as the evidence that is most sophisticated.

That is why usability matters. In expedited arbitration, usability is very close to usefulness.

Evidence under pressure

The practical reality is not elegant.

• Data may be incomplete;
• Instructions may evolve quickly, and
• Important documents may arrive late.

In one of my cases, the entire process was compressed—submissions, document production, witness evidence and closings all conducted within a significantly shortened timeframe. There was simply no room for leisurely development of expert evidence. If it was not focused and clear at the outset, it was not going to become so later.

In that environment, my role is not to achieve perfection. It is to produce analysis that is sufficiently clear and reliable to assist the tribunal.

Put simply: in expedited arbitration, perfection is not the standard. What matters is analysis that is clear, reliable and fit for decision within the time available.

Part II: My perspective as an arbitrator – From referee to architect

A shift in role

From an arbitrator’s perspective, expedited arbitration involves a clear shift in role.

In a conventional arbitration, I am often guiding a process shaped largely by the parties. In an expedited arbitration, I am designing that process to a much greater extent.

That is not because the tribunal suddenly becomes enthusiastic about micromanagement. It is because the process will not function otherwise.

Starting before Everything is ready

Expedited proceedings rarely begin in a neat or orderly way.

There may be delays in arranging the preliminary meeting. The parties may not agree on procedural issues. The timetable, however, continues to move.

In one matter, the parties were not prepared to hold a preliminary meeting for around three weeks following my appointment. Given the time constraints, I simply started the submissions process and held the meeting later. It was not procedurally elegant, but it worked.

That experience reinforced a simple point: in expedited arbitration, I sometimes have to move ahead of the process rather than wait for it to catch up.

Timetable discipline (and realism)

A tight timetable is essential, but it also has to be realistic.

An unrealistic timetable does not produce efficiency. It produces extensions, procedural frustration and delay quietly returning under different labels.

A sensible timetable should:

• Be front-loaded where possible;
• Identify the key issues early;
• Allow enough time for meaningful engagement; and
• Remove procedural stages that do not genuinely assist.

If parties try to run a full conventional arbitration inside an expedited timetable, something will fail. It is better to address that directly than pretend otherwise.

Availability and commitment: A non-negotiable starting point

In my view, availability is not a secondary consideration in arbitration – it is a threshold question. This is true in all cases, but it becomes critical in expedited proceedings. The timetable in an expedited arbitration is not a flexible framework; it is the process itself. If an arbitrator or expert is not genuinely available to engage fully and promptly at each stage, the procedure is immediately put under strain and the risk of unfairness increases. For that reason, I think the position needs to be stated clearly: arbitrators and experts should only accept appointments if they can realistically meet the timetable and deliver what is required. This is not a question of best intentions or professional ambition – it is a question of whether the process can function properly. If the answer is no, the appointment should not be accepted.

What does “being available” actually mean in practice?

Availability, however, is often described in principle and less often examined in practice.
In my experience, it is not simply a question of whether a diary contains sufficient empty space.

The practical reality is more exacting.

In expedited arbitration, availability means the ability to prioritise the case dynamically as it develops. Deadlines rarely arrive neatly spaced, and issues do not emerge sequentially. There are moments where the case requires immediate and sustained attention, and those moments cannot always be predicted in advance.

That leads to a more uncomfortable point.

Being available for an expedited arbitration may, in practice, require deprioritising other professional commitments at short notice. It is not enough to allocate time in advance on the assumption that the process will follow a steady path. It is more a question of whether one can respond when the process accelerates, as it often does.

I do not think there is a single model for managing that. Some will maintain a deliberate mix of work, balancing routine matters with expedited cases. Others will build contingency into their commitments.

But whatever the approach, the underlying requirement is the same: expedited arbitration cannot simply be fitted around a full conventional workload without consequence.

If everything remains a priority, nothing is.

So, for me, the test of availability is ultimately practical rather than theoretical. It is not whether I believe I can make the timetable work at the point of appointment. It is whether I can continue to give the matter the attention it requires when competing demands inevitably arise.

Managing expert evidence: less is actually more

Expert evidence presents a particular challenge.

There is a real risk of receiving significant volumes of technical material within a timeframe that does not allow proper engagement. The problem is not the quality of the material. It is whether it can actually be used.

That may require active case management. I may need to:

• Narrow the issues the experts address;
• Direct the format of reports;
• Encourage early identification of disagreements; and
• Or limit the scope of expert evidence altogether.

The objective is not to restrict evidence arbitrarily. It is to ensure that it is usable.

There is very little value in receiving a 200-page report shortly before deliberation. It may be impressive. It may even be correct. But if it cannot be properly absorbed, its practical value is limited.

There is, however, an obvious concern with limiting the scope of expert evidence, and it is not purely procedural.

Experts are typically required to confirm that they have considered all matters which they regard as relevant to their opinions. At first sight, that may appear difficult to reconcile with a process in which the scope of evidence is deliberately constrained.

In my view, the two are not inconsistent, but they do require careful handling.

Limiting the scope of expert evidence should not be understood as asking the expert to ignore relevant matters. Rather, it is a question of defining, at an early stage, what issues the tribunal requires assistance on and the extent to which those issues need to be explored for the purposes of the decision.

Within that defined scope, the expert’s duty remains unchanged.

The expert must still exercise independent judgment, consider the material necessary to support their conclusions, and ensure that their opinions are properly reasoned. What changes is not the integrity of the analysis, but the breadth of the enquiry.

That distinction matters.

If the scope is limited too aggressively, there is a risk that relevant matters are excluded in a way that affects the reliability of the conclusions or, more importantly, the fairness of the process.

If it is not limited at all, the process risks becoming unmanageable within the time available.

The task, therefore, is not simply to reduce the volume of evidence. It is to define a scope that is sufficiently focused to be workable, but sufficiently complete to be fair.

That is ultimately a matter of judgement – and it is one that falls primarily on the tribunal, but requires cooperation from both parties and experts to function properly.

Intervention and balance

Expedited arbitration requires intervention, but that intervention has to be disciplined.

Efficiency does not justify unfairness. Parties must still have a proper opportunity to present their case.

So the question is not whether I intervene, but how. Intervention should:

• Clarify the issues;
• Streamline the process; and
• Remain transparent.

Done properly, it improves both efficiency and fairness. Done badly, it risks appearing arbitrary or giving the impression that the tribunal has already formed a view and is simply shaping the material around it.

Time pressure (including on the tribunal)

Expedited arbitration also places pressure on the tribunal.

Deliberations are compressed. Drafting is compressed. The margin for delay is small.

In one of my early expedited cases, I was due to issue the award within the prescribed period, and then, rather inconveniently, I contracted Covid. An extension was required. That was a useful reminder that expedited does not mean inflexible. It means proportionate.

It also reinforced the importance of engaging with the evidence early and maintaining a clear understanding of the key issues throughout. Difficult points do not resolve themselves simply because time is limited.

Conclusion: not faster, but better focused

If I had to reduce expedited arbitration to one central idea, it would not be speed. It would be focus.

From both perspectives, the point is much the same. For the expert, expedited arbitration requires clarity, usability and early judgement. For the arbitrator, it requires active case management, control of process and evidence, and timely intervention.

So I do not see expedited arbitration as conventional arbitration performed at greater speed. I see it as arbitration with the polite fiction removed.

And while that may make life slightly less comfortable, it is very often where the real value lies.

About the author

Michael Tonkin is regarded as one of the world’s most trusted quantum experts, named by Lexology as a Global Elite Thought Leader. That recognition mirrors what tribunals routinely see: a disciplined, evidence‑driven expert whose testimony remains steady under pressure and whose reports shape clear pathways through technical and commercial complexity. His appointments — spanning more than 80 arbitrations — reflect a reputation built not only on expertise, but on an unwavering commitment to balanced, persuasive and rigorously supported opinion.

He is also an arbitrator specialising in high‑value construction and infrastructure disputes – spanning more than 75 arbitrations. He is routinely appointed in complex, multi‑party, expert‑heavy cases and is known for clear, decisive and commercially grounded case management that keeps proceedings tightly controlled and focused on the issues that matter. Michael is the current Deputy President of the Ciarb and will become President of the Ciarb in 2027.