Draft Cost Submissions For International Commercial Arbitration

Skill: ICC International Arbitration Cost Submission Drafting

2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

• Omits the governing cost-allocation basis from the award or procedural orders and therefore argues recoverability in the abstract rather than against the actual framework.
• Lists fee and expense totals without separately testing which categories are recoverable, which need justification, and which should be excluded or reduced.
• Fails to anticipate objections to time entries or disbursements that are duplicative, excessive, administrative, translation-related, or otherwise vulnerable.
• Mixes currencies or conversion dates without a consistent methodology, making the submission internally inconsistent or harder to verify.
• Seeks ancillary relief, including interest on costs, without identifying the legal basis, timing, and rate/method requested.
• Treats pre-award or pre-arbitration expenditures as automatically recoverable without tying them to the award language and procedural record.
• Includes internal-convenience translation or overhead-style items without screening whether they were incurred for the arbitration itself.
• Gives a narrative summary when the tribunal needs a disciplined, category-by-category claim presentation tied to the record.

3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

• ICC cost framework: anchor the submission in the ICC Rules and the tribunal’s procedural orders, then align the request with the award’s allocation approach and any express directions on costs.
• Party-pays / prevailing-party logic: identify which party the tribunal treated as the cost bearer, and frame the submission as an application of that allocation rather than a free-standing reimbursement wish list.
• Recoverability by category: separate legal fees, expert fees, tribunal or institution costs, hearing and travel disbursements, translation, interpreter, and any claimed in-house time into distinct categories and test each on its own footing.
• Challenge-aware drafting: where an entry is potentially vulnerable, address the reason in the submission itself with a short justification tied to the record, necessity, or procedural direction.
• Currency consistency: if the source materials use more than one currency, choose one presentation currency, disclose the conversion method, and apply it uniformly across the draft.
• Interest on costs: seek interest only if the governing rules, award language, or procedural posture support it; state the requested start date, rate, and compounding or simple-interest method if applicable.
• Pre-arbitration or pre-award costs: expressly address whether those costs fall within the award’s cost language or the tribunal’s discretion.
• Translation screening: include only translations and language services performed for the arbitration process; exclude items that appear to be for internal review, convenience, or non-arbitral use.
• In-house legal time: if included, describe the work performed and why the tribunal should treat it as recoverable rather than general overhead.
• Authority-based drafting: every legal proposition should be tied to the governing rule, institutional rule, order, award language, or generally recognized arbitral cost principle supporting it.

4. Analytical scaffolds

Begin by extracting the controlling cost framework from the award and procedural orders, then state the submission theory in one sentence.

Enumerate the recoverable cost categories that appear in the record before drafting the argument, and treat each category separately in the body of the submission.

Review the billing records for objection-sensitive entries before writing; for each one, add a concise, proactive explanation in the relevant category section.

Apply a single conversion methodology if the record contains multiple currencies, and present figures consistently in the submission currency.

If interest is sought, state the request expressly and tie it to the applicable arbitral authority and the requested accrual mechanics.

Test pre-arbitration or pre-award expenditures against the award language and the procedural history, and explain why they should or should not be included.

Screen translation, interpretation, and language-support invoices for arbitral necessity; exclude convenience-only items rather than trying to justify them generically.

When the source materials support more than one cost period or category, address each period or category separately instead of collapsing them into a blended total.

6. Output structure conventions

Use a formal cost-submission format with:

• Opening paragraph stating the allocation basis and the relief requested
• Category-by-category sections for recoverable costs
• Short record-based justification for entries likely to draw objection
• Separate section for currency methodology, if needed
• Separate section for interest on costs, if sought
• Concise summary table by category and total
• Final request to the tribunal for the amount claimed and any ancillary relief

Keep the drafting tribunal-facing: precise, economical, and anchored to the award, procedural orders, and billing records. Avoid overgeneralized rhetoric; every material request should be traceable to a rule, order, or documented expense.