Institutional support plays a critical role in arbitration, even when the proceedings are overseen by competent and proactive tribunals, according to Gourab Banerji, the President of the Arbitration Bar of India (ABI) and a Senior Advocate. Banerji shared these insights during a panel discussion at the London International Disputes Week (LIDW) 2026.
Banerji highlighted that the significance of arbitral institutions extends far beyond branding, as they ensure procedural discipline and effectively manage unforeseen challenges. He remarked, “Even with an experienced and proactive tribunal, the support of any good institution makes a difference.” This underscores the necessity of institutional backing to uphold accountability and facilitate smoother arbitration processes, particularly in cases involving defaults or non-participation.
The panel, which was moderated by Sherina Petit, Head of International Arbitration and India Practice at Stewarts, and Dhiraj Nair, Partner at JSA, included representatives from the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), and the Mumbai International Arbitration Centre (MCIA). The session, co-hosted by Stewarts and JSA, delved into topics such as institutional arbitration, costs, and procedural safeguards.
Banerji emphasized that while parties often focus on the tribunal, institutions add a crucial layer of accountability. He stated, “The tribunals who are competent are sometimes very busy, so you need somebody to keep you in check.” On the topic of whether an arbitral institution’s brand impacts outcomes, Banerji argued that there is no fixed ranking among institutions; instead, the choice should be guided by the nature of the case. He suggested that disputes involving Indian parties might be better handled by domestic institutions like the MCIA.
David Joseph, a barrister at Essex Court Chambers, also contributed to the discussion, addressing the role of institutions in enhancing efficiency and curbing delays that often plague arbitration proceedings. He noted, “Some of these arbitrations are taking too long… These are areas where I think all of us in the community are responsible. I think that is probably where, I would say, institutions should be focused next.” Joseph further observed that while institutional arbitration has become the dominant model due to its reliability, inefficiencies persist within the system.
More Read
In response to a query from Petit about the value of institutional involvement in cases with experienced tribunals, Banerji emphasized the necessity of institutional review. He stated, “Somebody is there to check your calculations, all the formal bits get ticked off… It is necessary. It’s not even desirable, it’s necessary.” This comment was part of a broader discussion on the scrutiny levels applied by institutions like the ICC and LCIA, and the need for a balance between oversight and efficiency.
Joseph supported the idea that institutional processes need improvement to reduce delays in tribunal constitution and award issuance. He noted that clients seek cost-effective and thorough adjudication, but institutions can significantly influence timelines and procedural efficiency. “The client wants a cost-efficient process… but they also want them time-efficient… that is where the choice of an institution does make a difference,” he concluded.
