This paper critically analyses the development and evolution of jurisprudence relating to the abuse of process in investment arbitration. A survey of 30 key awards since 2001 reveals four distinct groups of abuse of process cases that follow a particular path of jurisprudential development and call for the application of distinct legal mechanisms. A quest to conceive and apply a one-size-fit-all approach will not suffice and could potentially be counterproductive. The article also addresses the legal solutions in existence today to prevent and/or manage abuses of process, which ought to be better appreciated as the most practical way forwards.