Not all related disputes can be merged into a single arbitration. Consolidation requires compatible arbitration agreements and results in one proceeding with one award. But what happens when the disputes are related, the parties want efficiency, yet full consolidation is not possible or appropriate?
The SIAC Rules provide an alternative: coordinated proceedings. This mechanism allows separate arbitrations to be aligned procedurally while remaining distinct. Each arbitration retains its own identity; each results in its own award. But the proceedings are managed together, reducing duplication and the risk of inconsistent outcomes.
This article explains how coordinated proceedings work under the SIAC Rules, when they are available, and how they compare to consolidation.
1. What Are Coordinated Proceedings
Coordinated proceedings are separate arbitrations that are administered together. The arbitrations are not merged (they remain distinct proceedings with separate awards) but they are aligned in key respects:
- The same tribunal (or overlapping tribunal members) may be appointed to hear both arbitrations
- The procedural timetables are synchronised
- Hearings may be held concurrently or back-to-back
- Document production and evidence may be coordinated
- Submissions on common issues may be aligned
The result is procedural efficiency without the full merger that consolidation entails.
Coordination is particularly useful where:
- The arbitration agreements are not fully compatible (e.g., different seats or procedural variations), making consolidation unavailable
- Different parties are involved in different arbitrations, creating confidentiality or conflict concerns
- The disputes are related but not identical, and separate awards are appropriate
- One or more parties oppose consolidation, but some level of coordination is still desirable
2. How Coordinated Proceedings Differ from Consolidation
| Feature | Consolidation | Coordinated Proceedings |
| Outcome | One arbitration, one award | Separate arbitrations, separate awards |
| Tribunal | Single tribunal for all claims | Same or overlapping tribunal, but technically separate appointments |
| Parties | All parties become parties to one proceeding | Parties remain in their respective arbitrations |
| Binding effect | Single award binds all parties | Each award binds only parties to that arbitration |
| Requirements | Compatible agreements, common questions, same transaction | Related disputes; less stringent requirements |
| Confidentiality | All parties have access to all materials | Can be managed to preserve confidentiality between arbitrations |
In consolidated proceedings, the separate arbitrations cease to exist. In coordinated proceedings, they continue, but they proceed in tandem.
3. When Coordinated Proceedings Are Available
Rule 8.1 of the SIAC Rules (7th Edition) provides that the Court of Arbitration may order that two or more arbitrations be conducted concurrently, that is, coordinated where appropriate.
The requirements for coordination are less stringent than for consolidation. The Court considers:
- Whether the disputes are related (arising from the same project, transaction, or series of events)
- Whether coordination would promote efficiency without causing prejudice
- Whether the parties agree to coordination (though agreement is not strictly required)
- Whether the arbitration agreements, while not fully compatible for consolidation purposes, permit procedural alignment
- Whether confidentiality concerns can be managed
Unlike consolidation, coordination does not require a finding that the arbitration agreements are “compatible” in the technical sense. It requires only that the disputes are sufficiently related and that coordination is appropriate in the circumstances.
Party agreement
Where all parties agree to coordinated proceedings, the Court will generally order coordination. Where parties disagree, the Court exercises discretion, weighing efficiency against any prejudice to the objecting party.
4. What Coordination Looks Like in Practice
Coordinated proceedings can take various forms depending on what is appropriate for the disputes. Common elements include:
Same or overlapping tribunal
The most significant efficiency gain comes from appointing the same arbitrator (or the same panel) to hear both arbitrations. This ensures that the decision-maker has full visibility of both disputes and can manage them consistently.
Where the arbitration agreements provide for different tribunal compositions (e.g., one specifies a sole arbitrator and another specifies three), overlapping appointments may still be possible. For example, appointing the sole arbitrator from one arbitration as the presiding arbitrator in the other.
Synchronised procedural timetables
Coordinated arbitrations typically follow the same procedural calendar:
- Submissions are filed on the same dates
- Document production runs concurrently
- Witness statements are exchanged together
- The hearing is scheduled to cover both arbitrations (either jointly or back-to-back)
This avoids the inefficiency of counsel and parties preparing for multiple hearings at different times on overlapping issues.
Concurrent or sequential hearings
The tribunal may hear both arbitrations in a single hearing block. Depending on confidentiality considerations:
- Joint hearing: All parties attend all sessions. This is possible where there are no confidentiality restrictions between the arbitrations.
- Sequential hearing: The tribunal hears one arbitration, then immediately hears the other. Parties attend only their own sessions.
Coordinated evidence
Where the same witnesses or documents are relevant to both disputes, coordination avoids duplication:
- Witnesses give evidence once on common issues
- Documents produced in one arbitration are (with appropriate safeguards) available in the other
- Expert evidence on common technical issues can be coordinated
Separate awards
Despite the procedural alignment, the tribunal issues separate awards for each arbitration. Each award addresses only the claims in that arbitration and binds only the parties to that arbitration.
This preserves the integrity of each proceeding and avoids complications that might arise if parties to one arbitration were bound by findings made in another proceeding to which they were not party.
5. Steps to Introduce Coordinated Proceedings
Step 1: Assess whether coordination is appropriate
Consider:
- Are the disputes related? Do they arise from the same project, transaction, or factual matrix?
- Is consolidation available? If the arbitration agreements are fully compatible, consolidation may be more efficient than coordination.
- Are there confidentiality concerns? If sensitive information in one arbitration should not be shared with parties in the other, coordination must be structured carefully.
- Will the other parties agree? Coordination is easier to achieve with consent.
Step 2: Apply to the Court of Arbitration
A request for coordinated proceedings should include:
- Identification of the arbitrations to be coordinated
- An explanation of how the disputes are related
- A proposal for how coordination should work (same tribunal, synchronised timetable, hearing arrangements)
- If confidentiality is a concern, a proposal for managing it
- If consolidation was considered but rejected, an explanation of why coordination is the appropriate alternative
Step 3: Engage with the other parties
Even if you anticipate opposition, engaging with the other parties before filing the application may narrow the issues in dispute. The parties may agree to some aspects of coordination (e.g., same tribunal) while disputing others (e.g., joint hearings).
Step 4: Court determination
The Court of Arbitration will determine whether to order coordinated proceedings, and if so, on what terms. The Court may consult with the parties and, if tribunals are already constituted, with the tribunals.
6. If You Are Opposing Coordination
Coordination is not automatic, and you would need to have a legitimate reason to oppose it.
Grounds for opposition
- The disputes are not sufficiently related. Mere involvement of the same parties does not make disputes “related” if they concern different transactions or issues.
- Prejudice from coordination. Coordination may cause delay if one arbitration is more advanced than the other.
- Confidentiality concerns. A party may have legitimate concerns about information from one arbitration being shared with parties in another.
- Different procedural requirements. If the arbitrations are subject to materially different procedural rules or requirements, coordination may create complications.
- Conflict of interest. If the same tribunal is appointed to both arbitrations, concerns about bias or predetermination may arise.
Procedure
If you receive notice of an application for coordinated proceedings, respond in writing setting out your objections. Be specific about the prejudice you anticipate and, if appropriate, propose alternatives (e.g., limited coordination on discrete issues rather than full procedural alignment).
Practical considerations
Opposition to coordination has costs. If coordination is ordered over your objection, you will need to participate in the coordinated proceedings. Assess whether your objections are likely to succeed and whether the resources spent opposing coordination are justified.
7. Coordination vs Consolidation
The choice between coordination and consolidation depends on the circumstances:
| Consider consolidation when… | Consider coordination when… |
| All arbitration agreements are compatible | Arbitration agreements are not fully compatible |
| All parties should be bound by a single award | Separate awards are appropriate or necessary |
| There are no confidentiality concerns between arbitrations | Confidentiality must be preserved between arbitrations |
| The disputes are essentially identical and should be decided together | The disputes are related but distinct |
| All parties agree, or the requirements of Rule 8 are clearly met | Consolidation is unavailable or inappropriate, but procedural alignment would be efficient |
In some cases, parties may seek consolidation as a primary position and coordination as an alternative. The Court of Arbitration has discretion to order either.
8. Drafting Considerations
The availability of coordinated proceedings depends partly on how arbitration agreements are drafted.
Facilitating coordination
If parties anticipate that related disputes may arise across multiple contracts and want flexibility:
- Use arbitration clauses that permit coordination. In practice, that usually means spelling out, in language adapted to the specific deal, which instruments or categories of dispute the parties intend can move on aligned or overlapping schedules, whether overlapping or identical tribunals are contemplated, and how appointments and any party consent fit with those aims.
- Avoid provisions that would preclude coordination. Strict confidentiality provisions may make coordination difficult if they prohibit sharing information with non-parties.
- Ensure tribunal appointment mechanisms are compatible. If related contracts use different tribunal appointment mechanisms, coordination involving the same tribunal may be complicated.
Restricting coordination
If a party wishes to ensure that arbitrations under different contracts remain entirely separate:
- Include a provision expressly excluding coordination
- Include strict confidentiality provisions precluding disclosure to parties in other proceedings
- Use different tribunal appointment mechanisms in different contracts
Note that parties cannot unilaterally prevent coordination if the Court of Arbitration determines it is appropriate. Drafting can make coordination more difficult, but the ultimate decision rests with the Court.
Conclusion
Coordinated proceedings offer a middle ground between fully separate arbitrations and full consolidation. They allow related disputes to be managed efficiently, through same or overlapping tribunals, synchronised timetables, and coordinated hearings, while preserving the distinct character of each arbitration.
For parties with related disputes where consolidation is unavailable or inappropriate, coordination provides a flexible mechanism to achieve procedural efficiency without merging proceedings into one.