Share
Oliver Dean (Associate) and Ariane Kim Gonzalez (Trainee Solicitor) of Kennedys in London, along with Eloïse Villaz (Associate) of Kennedys in Paris, report on a recent fireside chat with the LCIA’s new director general, Kevin Nash.
In his first public speaking engagement since taking office as director general of the LCIA, Kevin Nash sat down with Kennedys partners Thomas Kendra and Karnan Thirupathy on 13 March 2025 at Kennedys' London office to discuss, among other topics, his initial impressions in the role, LCIA’s plans for future growth and innovation, diversity in international arbitration, and the institution’s role amid ongoing geopolitical and economic uncertainty.
Nash took up his new role at the start of the year, succeeding Jacomijn J. van Haersolte-van Hof, who had served as director general since 2014. Previously, Nash had spent over 13 years at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, where he had been registrar since 2021.
Beyond his own appointment, Nash joins the LCIA at a time of significant change for the institution, particularly with the upcoming leadership transition at the LCIA Court, where Maxi Scherer is set to become president in May 2025, succeeding Paula Hodges KC.
Initial Impressions:
Beginning the discussion by reflecting on the current pace of global change, Nash acknowledged the geopolitical tensions and economic uncertainties that have characterised the early weeks of his tenure. He emphasised that such disruptions underscore the growing importance of fair dispute resolution and the rule of law, reaffirming the LCIA’s status as a “truly independent institution, beholden to no one” and committed to just and impartial arbitration. Given London’s central role in global arbitration, Nash views the LCIA as uniquely positioned to address these challenges and reinforce its vital role in administering arbitration amid ongoing global upheaval.
When asked to compare his experience in the new role with his time at SIAC, particularly the notable similarities and differences between the LCIA and SIAC, Nash emphasised that he has been struck by the level of internationalisation in LCIA disputes. He noted that before assuming his new role, his “impression was that [the LCIA] was primarily an English institution.” However, Nash highlighted that the LCIA’s reach is considerably broader and that over the past six years, it has administered cases involving parties from 161 jurisdictions, across 70 different seats of arbitration, governed by 99 substantive laws, with 79% of cases not involving UK parties.
He also expressed satisfaction in seeing a diverse range of disputes at the LCIA, including domestic African disputes that adopt the LCIA’s rules and choose London as the arbitral seat. In terms of differences, Nash observed that SIAC has a “more structured administration,” while the LCIA “operates with a lighter touch.” Furthermore, despite subtle differences in their respective approaches and contrasts in specific provisions under each institution’s rules, Nash described how both institutions have equivalent internal structures and adopt similar philosophies when it comes to case management.
Ongoing Challenges:
Commenting on the major challenges currently facing the LCIA, Nash noted that arbitration as a whole, rather than just arbitral institutions, is competing with other forms of dispute resolution, such as ad-hoc arbitration, which remains a dominant tradition in jurisdictions such as India. To remain competitive, he stressed the need for the LCIA to sell the “virtues of institutional arbitration” and actively promote its advantages — namely, its efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and structured process compared to ad-hoc alternatives.
Nash also noted the importance of the LCIA promoting flexibility in arbitration. This includes embracing innovative tools such as tiered dispute resolution clauses or pre-conditions to arbitration to ensure that arbitration continues to meet the needs of its many users.
Regarding how the LCIA’s performance can be assessed, Nash stated that while “caseload is one measure”, it is not the sole determinant — a point Kendra agreed with, given his experience in establishing the Kigali International Arbitration Centre in Rwanda. Nash commented that equally important are factors such as the aggregate sum in dispute, the overall significance of the cases, market share, revenue, and employee satisfaction. He also emphasised a more qualitative aspect of assessment: the LCIA’s role as a thought leader in improving arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism.
Sector and Regional Growth:
With respect to the sectors the LCIA aims to focus on for future growth, Nash acknowledged the institution’s strong presence in areas such as international trade, commodities, shipping, maritime, and energy disputes, as highlighted in the LCIA’s 2023 annual casework report. While construction cases accounted for only 6% of the LCIA’s caseload in 2023, Nash attributed this in part to the LCIA’s categorisation of its casework and confirmed that construction cases remained an important part of its overall caseload.
However, he expressed a desire to expand the LCIA’s reach into sectors such as intellectual property, technology, fintech, and cryptocurrency. Additionally, in response to a question from Alexander Scard, legal director at Kennedys, Nash highlighted the insurance and reinsurance sector as one he hoped to reengage with. In 2023, only 3% of the LCIA’s caseload concerned disputes from this sector, despite insurance being the top sector for the LCIA in terms of fundholding arbitrations. Acknowledging this disconnect, Nash emphasised the strength of the London insurance and reinsurance market and noted that there was “no reason why [this sector] should not choose the LCIA.”
Nash stressed that the LCIA will focus on sectors where it holds a comparative advantage and can offer effective dispute resolution under its rules. Nevertheless, he noted that the LCIA would be willing to tweak its procedures — such as the removal of the requirement for an advance on costs or the introduction of model adjudication clauses — to make its dispute resolution more effective for certain sectors. From an accessibility standpoint, Nash is keen to ensure that the LCIA can administer arbitrations and provide parties with the opportunity to achieve justice whether the dispute is valued at £2,000 or £2 billion.
In terms of geographical outreach, Nash identified South Asia, including India, the Middle East, and Africa as key regions for the LCIA's future growth. Notably, the LCIA previously reported that the percentage of parties from Africa in its caseload doubled from 4% in 2022 to 8% in 2023. In contrast, the percentage of parties from Asia declined during the same period. Nash emphasised that the LCIA's initiatives in these regions will be tailored to local needs while leveraging its global reputation and expertise.
In response to a question from Oleg Shaulko, legal director at Kennedys, Nash also acknowledged the LCIA’s role in supporting Ukraine’s post-war rebuilding efforts. He highlighted the need to ensure that both foreign investors and Ukrainian parties have access to an independent and impartial dispute resolution institution. However, despite its ambitions, Nash noted that the LCIA has yet to decide whether to establish case management or representative offices in any of its target growth regions.
Future Procedural Innovation:
Although Nash was keen to highlight the strengths of the LCIA's current rules, he acknowledged that the last major update was in 2020 and that the LCIA has typically refreshed its rules every six years. He noted that the LCIA has already begun discussions on potential changes and plans to consult with the arbitration community in due course to ensure the LCIA does not introduce “new procedures in a vacuum”. Nash was keen to stress that the LCIA is committed to providing effective arbitration for all, ensuring it meets the needs of both repeat and first-time users — especially since parties' expectations of effectiveness often vary.
One prominent feature Nash confirmed would be considered as “an addition to the current LCIA rules” is the introduction of a fast-track procedure, particularly in light of the legislative backing now included in the Arbitration Act 2025, which grants tribunals the power to summarily dismiss unmeritorious claims or defences. Nash emphasised that the inclusion of a fast-track procedure would assist in making LCIA arbitrations more “accessible”.
In his final months at SIAC, Nash oversaw the revamping of SIAC’s fast-track arbitration provisions with the introduction of the streamlined procedure now included in SIAC Rules 2025. Notably, the ICC also provides for accelerated arbitrations through its expedited procedure provisions, which were one of the main innovations of the 2017 amendments to the ICC Rules. Nevertheless, as referenced by Nash, the LCIA’s Costs and Duration Analysis 2024 recently found that, despite the absence of an expedited procedure, LCIA arbitrations are generally less costly than those administered by other institutions, with the median duration remaining competitive.
Nash also noted that the Arbitration Act 2025 has strengthened the powers of emergency arbitrators by expressly granting them the same powers as a fully constituted tribunal to (i) enforce peremptory orders, and (ii) permit the parties to apply to the court for orders in support of arbitral proceedings. However, despite the recent reforms, Nash did not confirm whether he would consider increasing the powers of emergency arbitrators under the LCIA rules.
Overall, while the reforms introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025 have been positively received, questions persist as to whether they went far enough. It remains to be seen whether Nash and the LCIA will adopt a bolder approach in reforming the LCIA’s rules.
Diversity:
The issue of diversity was also raised during the discussion, with Nash being asked about the LCIA's role in fostering greater diversity within international arbitration. Citing the recently published LCIA EDI guidelines for international arbitration, which aim to ensure that tribunals are truly representative of the parties involved, Nash acknowledged the critical role the LCIA plays in promoting diversity, particularly in arbitral appointments.
Nash also addressed the issue of who should take the lead in incorporating these guidelines into the arbitration process. He noted that while the LCIA will be responsible for raising awareness of the guidelines, their adoption will ultimately depend on the mutual agreement of the parties, in consultation with the tribunal.
Despite this, Nash, pointing to previous statistics that revealed that the LCIA’s institutional appointments were overwhelmingly more diverse than both co-arbitrator appointments and party appointments, challenged parties and their legal representatives to take a more proactive role in ensuring diversity throughout the arbitration process.
United Kingdom
France
Singapore