2026 Australian Arbitration Week Recap: Australian Arbitration Survey (2nd edition) - First Look

Higher user satisfaction does not remove the challenge of making arbitration more efficient. The Australian Arbitration Survey 2026 (“Survey”) offers an opportunity to examine that tension. In February 2026, the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (“ACICA”) – with the support of HKA and FTI Consulting – launched the Survey, building on the Australian Arbitration Report 2020 and the Evidence in International Arbitration Report 2023, to deliver the most comprehensive empirical insights into Australia’s commercial arbitration landscape to date.

Hosted by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer and held during Australian Arbitration Week 2026, this session offered a ‘first look’ at the findings of the Survey. The panel featured members of the ACICA Australian Arbitration Survey Committee:

• Nick Longley, Partner, HFW and ACICA Vice-President (Moderator);

• Dawna Wright, Senior Managing Director, FTI Consulting;

• Imogen Kenny-Bartlett, Senior Associate, Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer;

• Brenda Horrigan, Independent Arbitrator and ACICA Board Member; and

• Victor Ageev, Managing Director, HKA.

A Bigger, Richer Dataset

Mr Ageev outlined the Survey methodology and noted increased participation in this Survey as compared to the 2020 survey, signalling greater engagement from the arbitration community in Australia. Compared with the 2020 survey, the total number of survey respondents increased by 58% and in-house respondents by 70%, while the total number of captured cases grew by 20%. Ms Horrigan noted that the Survey captures anonymised data from real cases with an ‘Australian connection’ over the period 2022-2025, providing evidence-based insight into the Australian arbitration market. This connection is defined broadly, including cases where, for example, ‘one or more tribunal members were Australian nationals residing outside Australia’ or ‘a party or parties were owned by a party located in Australia’.

Notwithstanding the increased participation, the panel cautioned that the data is by no means fully representative of the Australian arbitration market and is instead to be considered a mere snapshot of activity during the relevant period. In particular, the Survey may not have captured small-value matters or cases involving parties or legal representatives who are less engaged with ACICA. Accordingly, while the larger sample strengthens the survey’s evidence base, the increase in participation and captured cases should not, in itself, be taken as evidence of market growth, particularly given that changes in respondent market composition may also affect comparisons with 2020.

An Increasingly International and Diverse Market

The panel explored some of the key trends from the Survey which point to an Australian arbitration market that has grown in value and has become more international and diversified across industries. Cross-border disputes accounted for approximately 70% of cases captured, compared with approximately 50% in 2020, and the aggregate value of captured cases increased materially. This increase reflects the growing relevance of Australia as a venue for resolving complex, high-value disputes with international dimensions, and highlights the importance of maintaining an arbitration framework that accommodates the procedural and legal complexities of multi-jurisdictional disputes. The data also suggests broader industry representation, suggesting that arbitration in Australia is increasingly relevant and indicates a significant shift in the profile of disputes being resolved. Construction, oil and gas, and mining and resources accounted for approximately 74% of industry responses in 2020, but less than half in 2026. Finance, transport, renewables and other energy disputes featured more prominently, while new technologies and consumer products were also represented. The uptake of arbitration may be attributed to its oft-cited benefits, including international enforceability and procedural flexibility. However, particular sectors may also be drawn to arbitration for more specific reasons, for example, in the new technologies sector, the confidential nature of arbitration and the ability of the parties to appoint arbitrators with relevant industry expertise may be key factors driving its uptake.

The Arbitral Process as Both a Strength and Weakness

The data shows that user satisfaction has increased, with 71% of respondents satisfied or very satisfied with arbitration, compared with 62% in 2020. Ms Kenny-Bartlett discussed the value of neutrality, particularly where State entities are reluctant to submit to foreign courts, and confidentiality in disputes involving sensitive information and continuing commercial relationships is paramount. Overall, it was found that international arbitration users particularly valued enforceability, while users of domestic arbitration most valued confidentiality, speed and process. Despite this, speed remains an area for improvement in international arbitration, and the panel discussed how the size and complexity of disputes could affect the time required to resolve them. Given that one of the main attractions of arbitration over litigation is its streamlined, faster resolution of disputes, the emphasis domestic participants place on speed is perhaps unsurprising. Where parties have access to an established Australian court system, the ability to resolve disputes efficiently may be an important factor in justifying the choice of arbitration. However, procedural timeframes do not, in themselves, guarantee a faster or more cost-effective procedure. The extent to which arbitration delivers on this promise depends on the parties’ approach to the proceedings, the tribunal’s active case management and the avoidance of unnecessary procedural complexity.

Process also proved to be a divisive issue. Ms Wright explained that concerns included arbitrator availability, procedural caution arising from the risk of challenges to awards, and parties overcomplicating proceedings or resisting tailored procedures. To overcome these issues, virtual hearings, bifurcation and expedited procedures were identified as potential sources of greater efficiency. The practical question is therefore not simply which procedural tools are available, but when they are proportionate, i.e., when their use does not compromise a party’s reasonable opportunity to present its case. While these mechanisms can reduce time and costs, their value must be assessed against the particular circumstances of each dispute. Virtual hearings may minimise travel and logistical expenses, while bifurcation can avoid unnecessary expenditure where the determination of a preliminary issue may dispose of or materially narrow a dispute. Meanwhile, expedited procedures can provide a more adequate route to an award where the complexity of the dispute permits a streamlined process.

Diversity on Tribunals

Tribunal diversity has improved materially since the 2020 survey. The proportion of appointments of women increased from 8% in 2020 to 29% in 2026. Institutional appointments are driving increased parity, with appointments made by arbitral institutions nearly gender-balanced, in comparison to women accounting for only around 25% of party appointments. The Survey also recorded geographical diversity, with arbitrators drawn from the US, Singapore, Canada, Greater China and more than 30 other jurisdictions.

The discussion highlighted the influence of familiarity and recommendations on arbitrator selection, potentially leading to repeat appointments of the same individuals and limiting tribunal diversity. Arbitral institutions have a role to play in encouraging a considered approach to the selection of arbitrators, both by providing guidance to parties and counsel (such as ACICA’s Guidance Note on the Appointment of Arbitrators) and by continually broadening the pool of arbitrators available for appointment. ACICA’s dedicated Diversity Committee, established in 2022, actively works to ensure the institution is inclusive, equitable, supportive and culturally competent. ACICA has taken proactive steps to increase women’s representation on its Arbitrator Panel, including directly inviting eligible female arbitrators and barristers to apply for Fellow membership and encouraging existing members to promote diversity in appointments. These initiatives build on ACICA’s broader diversity efforts, including achieving gender parity within its Executive team in 2021 and implementing the Australian Arbitration Week Principles, which require event organisers to promote gender balance and diversity among speakers.

However, ACICA cannot independently determine the composition of every tribunal; where parties retain the power to nominate arbitrators, improving diversity also requires sustained engagement from parties and their legal representatives.

AI: A Tool, Not a Crutch

The Survey sought data on the use of closed artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems for 15-20 tasks typically conducted during an arbitration by lawyers, experts and arbitrators. Perhaps unsurprisingly, law firms – as compared to tribunals, experts and barristers – led the adoption and use of AI, mainly using these systems for document production, organisation, proofing, summarising and general administration. Respondents overwhelmingly rejected reliance on AI for substantive judgment. Mr Longley highlighted the gap between reported use and respondents’ comfort with AI use by others, with respondents generally expressing greater comfort with AI use than its current level of adoption would suggest. Concerns included errors and hallucinations, confidentiality and privacy, insufficient verification, over-reliance and the impact on junior practitioners’ development. Although respondents anticipated savings in time and cost because of AI use, the panel observed that these benefits might become clearer in future surveys. A useful next step may be to measure net savings after verification and correction, rather than adoption alone. This may help distinguish tools that genuinely improve efficiency from those that merely shift work to review and oversight.

Key Takeaways

Taken together, the findings of the Survey suggest that the role of the tribunal is key in shaping both the arbitral process and the overall user experience. Arbitration’s procedural flexibility offers tribunals considerable scope to tailor proceedings to the nature, complexity and value of the dispute, but its benefits depend on that flexibility being exercised effectively to minimise unnecessary cost and delay. Where procedures are not proportionate to the dispute, the resulting inefficiencies risk undermining the very advantages that make arbitration attractive to its users. Looking forward, tribunals must remain attentive to the growing role of AI in arbitration, both in recognising its potential to improve procedural efficiency and in understanding and responding to user’s expectations concerning its appropriate use.

The preliminary findings also highlight the important role that arbitral institutions can play in supporting effective tribunal practice. While party autonomy, including in the selection of arbitrators, remains a defining feature of arbitration, institutions can help promote greater consistency and efficiency through practical guidance, training, and ongoing engagement with arbitrators. ACICA’s initiatives in this regard include arbitrator roundtables, engagement with arbitrators early in the proceedings to obtain estimates of the anticipated costs, and the resources in the ACICA Practice & Procedures toolkit. By continuing to develop these resources in response to the evolving needs and expectations of arbitration users, ACICA can help ensure that the flexibility of arbitration translates into meaningful improvements in the productivity, proportionality and quality of the arbitral process.

The full Australian Arbitration Survey 2026 report will be released in the coming months.