Most people involved in negotiating, delivering or managing an energy or infrastructure project will never read the 2026 Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (the 2026 ICC Rules). They may not need to. But they do need to understand what their dispute resolution clause does when something goes wrong.
The 2026 ICC Rules are worth highlighting because ICC arbitration is frequently used for large cross-border energy and infrastructure disputes, where neutrality, enforceability, procedural flexibility and urgent relief matter. The Rules are not merely a procedural detail for the lawyers. They shape how a dispute is organised, how quickly urgent protection may be sought, how related parties and contracts may be dealt with and how early the business needs to be ready with its documents, witnesses and technical evidence.
In a major power, renewables, grid, liquified natural gas, storage or infrastructure project, a dispute is rarely just a legal problem. It can quickly become a cash-flow problem, a construction problem, a lender problem, a government-relations problem and, ultimately, a project continuity problem.
The useful question is therefore not only whether the clause is legally enforceable. It is this: if the project were in difficulty tomorrow, would the dispute clause help the project team maintain control or would it introduce another layer of uncertainty?
Ask yourself before a dispute arises:
If something went wrong tomorrow, would we know which clause applies? Could we act urgently if a contractor demobilised, a bond was called, or a grid delay threatened commissioning? Do our project contracts point to the same dispute process? Do we have the documents, notices and technical records needed to explain the dispute quickly? Does the clause help us keep the project moving, or only tell us where to fight later? |
The following scenarios demonstrate why dispute readiness matters.
Scenario 1: the contractor is about to demobilise
A contractor on a transmission project says it has not been paid and will leave the site within 72 hours. The employer says the contractor is already in delay and threatens to call the performance bond.
This is where the dispute clause needs to work quickly. The business may not be able to wait months for a tribunal to be constituted. Emergency relief, interim measures and a clear escalation pathway can determine whether the project is stabilised or whether the dispute causes immediate damage.
Where a contractor is about to demobilise, the 2026 ICC Rules may assist because they provide a framework for urgent measures before the full dispute is finally resolved. That matters where the immediate priority is to preserve the status quo, prevent further disruption or keep the project moving.
The practical point for project teams is that arbitration is not only about the final award. In the right circumstances, it can also provide tools to manage a crisis. But those tools are only useful if the business can quickly explain what has happened, why it is urgent and what practical protection is needed.
Scenario 2: the dispute is technical, but the consequences are financial
A solar project fails performance testing. The contractor blames grid instability. The employer blames defective equipment. Liquidated damages are accruing and lenders are asking questions.
Not every dispute should proceed immediately to full arbitration on every issue. Where a dispute is technical, but the consequences are financial, the 2026 ICC Rules can assist by giving the tribunal flexibility to shape the procedure around the real issue. The project may require an early and focused process to identify the technical question, determine what expert evidence is needed and decide whether that issue should be addressed first.
For project teams, the point is not simply to arbitrate faster. It is to arbitrate in a way that answers the question the project needs resolved. If the problem concerns performance testing, grid instability, defects or delay analysis, the procedure should be designed around the technical evidence that will determine the outcome.
Scenario 3: one project, five contracts, three possible disputes
A project company has claims involving the EPC contract, grid connection agreement, power purchase agreement (PPA), government support agreement and operations and maintenance arrangements. Each contract contains a slightly different dispute clause.
Energy and infrastructure disputes often do not sit neatly within a single agreement. Where one project involves several related contracts, the 2026 ICC Rules can assist by providing mechanisms for dealing with multi-party and multi-contract disputes, including joinder and consolidation where the relevant requirements are met.
For project teams, the practical point is that the Rules can help manage related disputes together but only if the contract suite has been drafted with that possibility in mind. If the PPA, EPC contract, grid connection agreement and government support agreement all point in different procedural directions, the Rules may not be sufficient to avoid fragmentation.
The takeaway is simple: the dispute clauses across the project documents should operate as a system, not as isolated boilerplate provisions.
Scenario 4: the claim is weak, but it is being used to delay payment
An offtaker raises a jurisdictional objection or notice defence that appears tactical. Payment remains outstanding while the issue is argued.
Where a claim or defence appears plainly weak or tactical, the 2026 ICC Rules can assist by providing the tribunal with a mechanism to address the issue at an early stage. This may be useful where, for example, a party raises a jurisdictional objection, notice point or other threshold argument primarily to delay payment or slow the project down.
For project teams, the practical point is that early determination is most useful for issues that can be resolved cleanly and efficiently without a full factual or technical inquiry.
Early determination can help eliminate issues that should not consume the life of the project but it will only be effective where the issue is genuinely narrow and suitable for early resolution.
In conclusion, for project teams, the question is not whether they expect a dispute. Most do not. The better question is whether the project is ready if one arises.
The 2026 ICC Rules create opportunities for faster and more focused dispute management, but they do not replace clear drafting, aligned contracts, preserved records and early business input. In major energy and infrastructure projects, dispute readiness is not pessimism. It is part of ensuring that a project remains deliverable.
Webber Wentzel’s team is well placed to support clients throughout the project lifecycle, from drafting and risk allocation to live project advice, dispute avoidance and formal dispute resolution where required.
