Published: 2026-02-27 00:00
In institutional arbitration, the place of hearing is often overlooked yet prone to dispute. It affects not only the parties’s costs and convenience in participating in the hearing, but also practical arrangements concerning case management, information security, and witness attendance. With the growing prevalence of remote hearings, the distinction between the Seat of Arbitration and the Place/Venue of Hearing has become increasingly critical: the former determines the procedural law and the courts competent to exercise judicial supervision, whereas the latter is primarily an operational or technical anchor for the organization of hearings. The place of hearing is not a statutory term; it generally refers to the physical location where hearing activities are actually conducted. It may coincide with the seat, or it may be outside the seat. A guiding case of the Supreme People’s Court of China—Daichan Sangyo Gas Kabushiki Kaisha; Daichan (Guangzhou) Gas Co., Ltd. v. Praxair (China) Investment Co., Ltd. (Application for Confirmation of the Validity of an Arbitration Agreement)—also clarifies that the seat of arbitration has no necessary connection with the place of hearing. The seat principally serves to determine the “nationality” (juridical affiliation) of the arbitral award, the courts with jurisdiction to exercise judicial supervision, and the law applicable to the arbitral procedure and the arbitration agreement.①
Article 28 of the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization (ICDPASO) Commercial Arbitration Rules (the “Rules”) (the“Article 28”) addresses the place of hearing through two concise paragraphs. Paragraph (1) establishes an institutionalized and predictable default venue; paragraph (2), grounded in party autonomy and tempered by a cost-allocation valve, allows parties to depart from the default while internalizing the resulting external costs. This design aligns well with the newly revised Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (the "New Arbitration Law")in relation to hearing notice, procedural autonomy, online arbitration, and the “seat of arbitration” framework for foreign-related arbitration.
I. Text of Article 28 of the Rules
Article 28. Place of Hearing
1. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, the hearing shall be held at the location of the Court of Arbitration or the location of the Branch authorized by the Court of Arbitration to specifically provide the procedure management services.
2. The parties may agree to hold a hearing in a place other than the place specified in the preceding paragraph, provided that, they shall bear the expenses incurred thereby.
II. Clause-by-Clause Commentary on Article 28
Paragraph (1): An Institutional “Landing Point” Design Centered on Predictability and Manageability
1. Textual Analysis: A Three-Tier Default Mechanism
This paragraph, structured around “unless” and “place of location,” establishes a clear, logical, and practically operable rule.
“Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or otherwise decided by the arbitral tribunal” expressly establishes two priority pathways: (i) deference to party autonomy; and (ii) authorization for the tribunal to exercise discretion where required for case management. This aligns with international practice by treating the place of hearing as a flexible procedural element rather than a fixed attribute of the administering institution.
“The place where the Arbitration Court is located or … the place where an authorized branch institution is located” provides a workable default where there is neither party agreement nor tribunal decision. This enables parties, from the filing stage, to form reasonable expectations regarding hearing costs, travel arrangements, facilities, and confidentiality conditions—reducing procedural disputes and delay at the source.
“A branch institution authorized … to provide case management services” functions as the institutional interface through which hearing organization and case administration can be delegated. This supports standardized service delivery, improves accessibility for parties in different regions, and enhances cross-regional service coverage.
2. Comparative Law Perspective
The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration distinguishes the seat from the place where hearings or meetings may be held, and permits the tribunal to conduct hearings at any place it considers appropriate.②
The ICC Arbitration Rules (2021) treat the place of hearing as part of hearing organization, typically determined by the tribunal after consulting the parties.③
The LCIA Arbitration Rules (2020) expressly distinguish the Seat and the Place(s) of Hearing.④
The HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules (2024) (including the official Chinese version) likewise clearly distinguishes between the seat and the hearing venue.⑤
The added value of the Rules is not merely reiterating separability, but providing an institutional default “landing point” that lowers coordination costs and improves procedural start-up efficiency within the broader discretionary framework.
3. Doctrinal Basis
Although the place of hearing appears to be a matter of procedural logistics, it can affect assessments of procedural propriety. If a venue change is not properly notified, or if attendance and testimonial conditions are not effectively safeguarded, it may trigger procedural objections and even challenges to the award.
By clarifying a default venue and enabling branch-level authorized administration, this paragraph narrows the space for dispute and enhances procedural stability and foreseeability.
4. Practical Guidance: How Parties Should Use the Default Rule Effectively
Drafting suggestions for arbitration clauses and procedural orders: In the arbitration clause or the first procedural order, parties should expressly distinguish the Seat of Arbitration (governing the lex arbitri, applicable law framework, and supervisory court jurisdiction) from the Place/Venue of Hearing (governing hearing logistics). Parties may also consider in advance whether to prioritize remote or hybrid hearings.
Record-keeping for venue changes: Where the tribunal decides on a different hearing venue, it should concurrently specify service/notice methods, in-person attendance or remote access arrangements, and witness organization measures, thereby forming a complete procedural record.
Making use of authorized branch institutions: Parties located in coastal regions or in cross-border commercial hubs may opt for hearings at authorized branches to reduce travel costs and obtain more stable institutional support.
ICDPASO Xiamen Representative Office can provide procedural communication support, meeting organization, assistance with submission of materials, hearing venue arrangements, and supporting case secretariat services.
On 7 September 2022, ICDPASO established its first representative office worldwide in Xiamen. It aims to provide enterprises in Xiamen, Fujian Province, and the southeastern coastal region with a full-chain commercial legal service system—pre-dispute prevention, in-dispute management, and post-dispute resolution—and to promote the development of the Maritime Silk Road Central Legal District into a modern rule-of-law innovation platform with international influence and global visibility.
International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization (ICDPASO) (Xiamen) Representative Office
Address: 3/F, Building 2, Sea World, No. 15 Shuangshi North Road, Huli District, Xiamen, Fujian Province, PRC
Tel: +86 18046257701
Email: caoxiaowen@icdpaso.org
Paragraph (2): Cost-Anchored Autonomy — Constraining Venue Choice Through Cost Responsibility
1. Textual Analysis
Parties may agree on another place. This fully respects party autonomy and facilitates flexible venue selection based on evidentiary concentration, witness convenience, site inspections or expert examinations, or compromise solutions for cross-border parties.
However, they shall bear the costs thereby incurred. This internalizes incremental costs resulting from deviation from the default venue—such as venue rental, hearing equipment and simultaneous interpretation, travel and accommodation, witness arrangements, transportation and custody of documents, and enhanced information-security measures. As a result, strategic forum shopping for a hearing venue and delay tactics are discouraged.
2. Comparative Law Perspective
International rules often leave venue selection to the tribunal (after consulting the parties), and the resulting expenses are generally treated as part of arbitration costs.
The SIAC Rules (2025) confer on the tribunal the power to determine hearing form and venue, presupposing an integrated balance between cost and efficiency.⑥
The ICC Rules (2021) provide that the tribunal determines the date and place of hearings and ensures parties have a reasonable opportunity to present their case through adequate notice.⑦
The distinctive feature of this paragraph lies in expressly embedding the allocation of incremental costs caused by departure from the default venue into the text of the Rules itself, thereby strengthening ex ante procedural discipline. When parties negotiate the venue, they must simultaneously address who bears the additional costs, reducing the risk that a venue debate escalates into broader procedural conflict.
3. Doctrinal Basis
Hearing venues can be exploited strategically—for example, by selecting a location inconvenient for the opposing party, increasing travel and organization costs, and pressuring the other party into adjournments or unfavorable concessions. This paragraph achieves two doctrinal functions through its cost rule:
Making the interest-balancing explicit: The party (or parties) advocating departure from the default venue must assume responsibility for incremental costs, encouraging legitimate and proportionate proposals.
Preventing procedural rights from being weaponized: By coupling venue freedom with cost responsibility, the Rules prevent procedural autonomy from becoming a tool of oppression.
4. Practical Guidance
Specify cost clauses concurrently when agreeing on an alternative venue: Parties may clarify the scope of costs (venue, equipment, interpretation, travel, witness arrangements, etc.); prepayment mechanisms; billing and audit standards (institution invoices or third-party receipts); and ultimate allocation (e.g., “advanced by the proposing party, ultimately borne by the losing party,” or “to be apportioned by the tribunal in its decision on costs”).
Prioritize hybrid/remote hearing alternatives: The New Arbitration Law expressly recognizes that arbitration activities may be conducted online through information networks (unless the parties expressly disagree), making remote participation a robust cost-control option without undermining the right to be heard.⑧
Coordinate evidence presentation with information-security safeguards: Venue changes may alter the information-security risk profile. Parties should consider including data transmission rules, recording restrictions, custody arrangements for materials, and participant access controls in the procedural order.
III. Interface with the New Arbitration Law and Practical Advantages
1.Coordination with the “hearing notice—postponement request” framework:
The New Arbitration Law requires the administering institution to notify hearing dates within the time limits set by the rules, and permits parties to request postponement within those limits, with the tribunal deciding whether to grant it.⑨ Article 28 fixes the place of hearing as an upstream procedural arrangement (“default venue + variation mechanism”), which stabilizes the content of hearing notices (time and place) and reduces service defects and procedural disputes caused by frequent venue changes.
2.Synergy with the division of concepts after introducing the “seat of arbitration”:
The New Arbitration Law (Chapter VII: Special Provisions on Foreign-Related Arbitration) provides that parties may agree in writing on the seat of arbitration, which serves as the basis for determining the lex arbitri and the competent supervisory court, and the award is deemed made at the seat.⑩ This further strengthens the institutional space for Seat ≠ Place of Hearing. Article 28 complements this by enhancing controllability and convenience in hearing organization—without altering the seat—through default venue rules and cost allocation.
IV. Conclusion
Article 28 responds in a streamlined yet systematic manner to the need to balance procedural certainty and flexibility. It injects institutional predictability by setting the location of the Arbitration Court / authorized branch location as the default place of hearing; preserves necessary flexibility through party agreement / tribunal decision; and internalizes spillover costs through a cost-bearing rule, discouraging strategic gamesmanship and ensuring that “convenience” remains grounded in legitimate reasons.
In application, parties should keep the conceptual distinction clear: the seat of arbitration connects to governing law and judicial supervision; the place/venue of hearing connects to hearing logistics and cost control. Against the backdrop of the New Arbitration Law’s establishment of the seat framework and recognition of online arbitration, Article 28’s institutional advantages are well-positioned to translate into practical, enforceable procedural dividends.
①Case of Dacheng Industrial Gases Co., Ltd., Dacheng (Guangzhou) Gases Co., Ltd. v. Praxair (China) Investment Co., Ltd. Seeking Confirmation of Arbitration Agreement Validity, Supreme People's Court Releases Typical Case No. 3 (2024) on Judicial Review of Arbitration ②UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in 2006 art Article 20 Place of arbitration which provides that: “(1) The parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration. Failing such agreement, the place of arbitration shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the parties. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this article, the arbitral tribunal may, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, meet at any place it considers appropriate for consultation among its members, for hearing witnesses, experts or the parties, or for inspection of goods, other property or documents.” ③ICC 2021 Arbitration Rules art18.2, which provided that: “The arbitral tribunal may, after consulting the parties, conduct hearings and meetings at any location it considers appropriate, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.” ④LCIA Rules（2020）art.16,which provides that: “ 16.1The parties may agree in writing the seat (or legal place) of their arbitration at any time before the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal and, after such formation, with the prior written consent of the Arbitral Tribunal. 16.2 In default of any such agreement, the seat of the arbitration shall be London (England), unless and until the Arbitral Tribunal orders, in view of the circumstances and after having given the parties a reasonable opportunity to make written comments to the Arbitral Tribunal, that another arbitral seat is more appropriate. Such default seat shall not be considered as a relevant circumstance by the LCIA Court in appointing any arbitrator or Emergency Arbitrator under Articles 5, 9A, 9B, 9C and 11. 16.3 If any hearing is to be held in person, the Arbitral Tribunal may hold such hearing at any convenient geographical place in consultation with the parties.If the Arbitral Tribunal is to meet in person to hold its deliberations, it may do so at any geographical place of its own choice. If such place(s) should be elsewhere than the seat of the arbitration, or if any hearing or deliberation takes place otherwise than in person (in whole or in part), the arbitration shall nonetheless be treated for all purposes as an arbitration conducted at the arbitral seat and any order or award as having been made at that seat.” ⑤HKIAC 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules art 14 Seat and Venue of the Arbitration, which provided that: “14.1 The parties may agree on the seat of arbitration. Where there is no agreement as to the seat, the seat of arbitration shall be Hong Kong, unless the arbitral tribunal determines, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that another seat is more appropriate. 14.2 Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the arbitral tribunal may meet at any location outside of the seat of arbitration which it considers appropriate for consultation among its members, hearing witnesses, experts or the parties, or the inspection of goods, other property or documents. The arbitration shall nonetheless be treated for all purposes as an arbitration conducted at the seat.” ⑥SIAC Rules（2025）art.39.4,which provides that: “The Tribunal may deliberate in any manner and at any location it considers appropriate. Any anticipated expenses for the Tribunal’s deliberations must be approved in advance by the Registrar.” ⑦ICC 2021 Arbitration Rules art 26.1, which provided that: “1)...... When a hearing is to be held, the arbitral tribunal, giving reasonable notice, shall summon the parties to appear before it on the day and at the place fixed by it.......” ⑧Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised in 2025) art 11, which provided that:“Arbitration activities may be conducted online on an information network, unless the parties explicitly disagree to it.” ⑨Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised in 2025) art 53, which provided that:“The arbitral institution shall notify the parties of the date of the hearing within the time limit specified in the rules of arbitration. A party may, within the time limit specified in the rules of arbitration, request a postponement of the hearing, with good reason. The arbitration tribunal shall decide whether or not to postpone the hearing.” ⑩Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised in 2025) art 81, which provided that:“The parties may agree on the seat of arbitration in writing. Unless the parties have otherwise agreed on the applicable law of the arbitration procedure,the seat of arbitration shall serve as the basis for determining the applicable law of the arbitration proceedings and the court with jurisdiction. An arbitration award is deemed to have been rendered at the seat of the arbitration. If the parties have not agreed on the seat of arbitration or have agreed ambiguously, the seat of arbitration shall be determined in accordance with the arbitration rules agreed upon by the parties; if the rules of arbitration are silent, the arbitration tribunal shall determine the seat of arbitration based on the circumstances of the case and the principle of facilitating dispute resolution.” art 87, which provided that:”The parties to foreign-related arbitration are encouraged to choose an arbitral institution of the People's Republic of China (including its special administrative regions) and agree that the People's Republic of China (including its special administrative regions) is the seat of arbitration.”
