The case management conference provides the mechanism for determining the manner in which the arbitration will be conducted. If it is not possible to determine the entire procedure at the first case management conference, the remaining issues may be decided at a subsequent conference. The decisions made at the case management conference can be modified during the course of the arbitration by agreement of all of the parties or, failing such agreement, by a decision of the arbitral tribunal.

Article 24(1) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration requires the arbitral tribunal to convene an early case management conference to consult the parties on the conduct of the arbitration. Thereafter, pursuant to Article 22(2) of the Rules, the arbitral tribunal may adopt procedural measures for the conduct of the arbitration, provided that they are not contrary to any agreement of the parties. Article 22(1) requires the arbitral tribunal and the parties to make every effort to conduct the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner, having regard to the complexity and value of the dispute.

Issues to be decided include: the number of rounds of briefs; the extent of document production, if any; the early determination of issues; fact and expert witnesses; and the conduct of the hearing, if any. The topic sheets contained in this guide are designed to assist the parties, along with their counsel and the arbitral tribunal, in making appropriate choices for the conduct of the arbitration.

In practice, after receiving the case file, the arbitral tribunal may invite the parties to make case management proposals. If it does not do so, the parties can seek to agree between themselves upon the conduct of the proceedings. If they arrive at an agreement, it must be followed, subject to any proposals of the arbitral tribunal that are accepted by all of the parties. If the parties do not reach an agreement, the arbitral tribunal, after listening to the parties, will adopt procedural measures that it deems to be appropriate for the case at hand.

While Article 22(1) of the Rules refers to expeditious and cost-effective proceedings, it also makes clear that speed and low cost are not ends in themselves. The complexity and value of the dispute must be taken into account. A cost-effective and expeditious arbitration will be one in which the time and cost devoted to resolving the dispute is appropriate in light of what is at stake. In each case, it is necessary to make a cost/benefit analysis in order to see whether a particular procedural measure is cost-justified.

The objectives of the parties will play a crucial role in making such choices. Some examples of how parties' goals may translate into case management strategy are set forth below:

• When an important matter of principle is at stake, it may be worth the time and expense needed for a thorough examination of the facts and a full articulation of all legal arguments. A party with this objective may be willing to incur the expense of more extensive document production, multiple rounds of written submissions, a larger number of fact and expert witnesses, and the like.

• When neither an important principle nor great sums are at stake, parties may wish the arbitration to be as inexpensive and rapid as possible. Here, in contrast, parties may seek to limit document production, limit the number of witnesses, shorten hearings or minimize submissions.

• When parties wish to settle the case, for example in order to maintain their relationship or mitigate the risk of loss, they may use the case management conference to seek bifurcation of the proceedings or an early determination of controlling issues, the resolution of which might facilitate settlement. The parties may also agree to undertake settlement procedures either before or during the remaining phases of the arbitration.