ICDPASO Commercial Arbitration Rules Interpretation Series 31“Default Hearing”

Where arbitration jurisdiction has been agreed, participation in arbitral proceedings—particularly attendance at hearings—is both a right and an obligation of the parties, especially the disputing parties. In international arbitration, where a party, after having been given proper notice, fails to participate in the arbitral proceedings without justifiable reasons, such failure may be deemed a waiver of its procedural rights. In practice, “default” in arbitral proceedings takes many forms: a party may strategically refuse to appear; fail to file the Application for Arbitration or the Statement of Defense within the prescribed time; fail to attend after notice; leave the hearing midway; or respond passively to procedural directions and refuse to produce evidence. All such conduct constitutes a breach of the party’s procedural obligations in arbitration and should entail corresponding consequences under relevant international rules, applicable law, and arbitral rules. If an arbitral rule lacks clear and operable mechanisms to address default, the proceedings easily fall into a dilemma: they cannot be suspended or delayed merely because one party participates passively, yet efficiency cannot be pursued at the expense of fairness by equating “non-participation” with “admission of claims” or “automatic defeat”.

Article 31 of the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization (ICDPASO) Commercial Arbitration Rules (the “Rules”), titled “Default Proceedings”, addresses the foregoing situations by establishing, through four paragraphs, a procedural mechanism that is well-structured, consequence-oriented, and balanced between efficiency and fairness. It distinguishes between failure to file a Application for Arbitration and failure to file a Statement of Defense; separately sets out the legal effects of non-attendance and mid-hearing withdrawal; clarifies the procedural consequences of failure to produce evidence; and, in key provisions, affirms the rule position that “continuing the proceedings ≠ automatically upholding the claim”, reflecting a mature and robust philosophy of procedural governance.

Article 31 of the Rules (“Article 31”) not only aligns in general direction with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) and the rules of major international arbitral institutions, but also provides detailed responses to high-frequency practical issues such as counterclaims, withdrawal mid-hearing, and non-production of evidence. Moreover, against the institutional backdrop of the newly revised Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “new Arbitration Law”), which strengthens requirements concerning notice, defense, evidence submission, the opportunity to be heard, and procedural record-keeping, Article 31 both addresses the practical concern of “whether proceedings may continue after default” and, through a clear “conduct–consequence” correspondence, offers arbitral tribunals a verifiable, explainable, and challenge-resilient pathway for adjudication, while providing parties with stable and predictable procedural guidance.

I. Text of Article 31 of the Rules

Article 31. Default Hearing

1. Within the time limit specified by these Rules or determined by the Arbitral Tribunal:

(a) if the Claimant neither submits an Application for Arbitration nor treats the Arbitration Notice as an Application for Arbitration, the Arbitral Tribunal shall terminate the arbitral proceedings unless there are still pending matters to be decided 

and the Arbitral Tribunal considers it appropriate to make a decision on the pending matters;

(b) if the Respondent neither submits the Response or Statement of Defense to the Arbitration Notice nor provides justified reasons for non-submission, the Arbitral Tribunal shall continue the hearing, provided that, the failure to submit the Response 

or Statement of Defense shall not be deemed as recognizing the Claimant's claim; this provision shall also apply to the circumstance where the Claimant fails to submit a Statement of Defense to the counterclaim or the claim made for offset purpose.

2. If the Claimant, having been duly notified, fails to appear at the hearing without justified reasons or withdraws from an ongoing hearing without the permission of the Arbitral Tribunal, it shall be deemed to have withdrawn the arbitration application, 

without prejudice to the Arbitral Tribunal's hearing of the counterclaim made by the Respondent in the absence of the Claimant.

3. If the Respondent, having been duly notified, fails to appear at the hearing without justified reasons or withdraws from an ongoing hearing without the permission of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal may proceed with the arbitration in the absence of the Respondent. If the Respondent makes a counterclaim, it shall be deemed to have withdrawn the counterclaim application.

4. If a party, without providing reasons, fails to provide or produce documents, physical objects or other evidence within the time limit prescribed by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal may make an award based on the evidence submitted.

II. Clause-by-Clause Commentary on Article 31

Paragraph (1) Procedural Consequences of Failure to Submit the Application for Arbitration / Statement of Defense

This paragraph aims to address the situations most likely to trigger procedural disputes at the early stage of arbitration, namely, where a party fails to complete key written submissions within the prescribed time limit. Through two subparagraphs, it sets legal consequences respectively for the claimant’s and the respondent’s default conduct (extended to counterclaims and claims for set-off).

1. Textual Analysis

This paragraph contains four core elements: “within the time limit prescribed by these Rules or determined by the arbitral tribunal”, “fails to submit”, “fails to show sufficient reasons”, and “continue the proceedings / terminate the proceedings”.

For the claimant, where it fails to submit the Application for Arbitration and has not elected to treat the Notice of Arbitration as the Application for Arbitration, the proceedings shall, as a principle, be terminated. However, the text provides an exception—“unless there remain outstanding matters that require decision and the arbitral tribunal considers it appropriate to decide such outstanding matters”—thereby granting the tribunal discretion. Here, “outstanding matters” does not refer to new claims not advanced by the claimant, but rather unresolved issues that already existed in the proceedings before the claimant’s default and have not yet been disposed of. These may include procedural matters (e.g., jurisdictional objections, emergency arbitrator procedures, allocation of costs, etc.); substantive matters independent of the principal claim (e.g., counterclaims or set-off claims raised by the respondent); and matters the tribunal must address ex officio (e.g., confirmation of jurisdiction). In deciding whether to continue, the tribunal should apply the discretionary standard of “considers it appropriate”, taking into account proportionality, procedural finality, and fair protection of the bona fide party, so as to avoid leaving unresolved procedural or substantive issues due to one party’s passive conduct or prejudicing the other party’s interests.

For the respondent, failure to submit a response to the Notice of Arbitration or a Statement of Defense constitutes procedural passivity rather than substantive admission. This paragraph expressly rejects simplistic presumptions such as “default equals losing” or “silence equals admission”—a respondent may choose not to file a defense for strategic reasons, rather than necessarily accepting the claimant’s assertions. The authorization to “continue the proceedings” is intended to prevent the proceedings from being stalled by passive conduct. Even where the respondent is absent throughout, the tribunal must still proactively examine jurisdiction, require the claimant to discharge its burden of proof as to the facts alleged, conduct substantive review of the evidence, and independently assess whether the legal basis is established. This ensures that a default award is grounded in substantive adjudication.

To ensure procedural symmetry, this paragraph expressly brings within the same track the claimant’s failure to file a defense to a counterclaim or a claim raised for set-off, treating it in the same manner as the respondent’s failure to file a defense.When the respondent submits a counterclaim, it assumes the position of a claimant with respect to that counterclaim. If the original claimant fails to submit a defense to the counterclaim, such failure should not be deemed an admission of the factual allegations underlying the counterclaim; the tribunal must not simply render a default award adverse to it; rather, it should continue the proceedings and examine whether the counterclaimant has discharged its burden of proof. In addition, a set-off claim has both defensive and offensive characteristics: as a defense, it may partially negate the principal claim even absent a defense submission; as an offensive claim, it resembles a counterclaim. Accordingly, where the claimant fails to file a defense to a set-off claim, this paragraph likewise applies—no deemed admission arises, and the tribunal must examine its factual and evidentiary basis.

The key of this paragraph lies in clearly distinguishing “default conduct” from “admission consequences”. This arrangement dispels the misconception that failure to file a defense automatically results in defeat, ensures that tribunals must return to evidence and law for substantive adjudication, and enhances the resilience and stability of awards in subsequent judicial review. In addition, the threshold condition—“within the time limit prescribed by these Rules or determined by the arbitral tribunal”—integrates the Rules’ time limits with case management timelines, enhancing flexibility and enabling the tribunal to consider factors such as complex service arrangements.

2. Comparative Law Perspective

The design of this paragraph is consistent with the basic spirit of the Model Law and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021) concerning default, in particular by incorporating the “outstanding matters” exception and adopting the mature approach of bringing failure to respond to counterclaims (and claims raised for set-off) within the same logic.① The rules of leading institutions such as the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, and HKIAC differ in phrasing, but share the same core governance logic: failure to submit written pleadings does not prevent the proceedings from moving forward, nor does it constitute an automatic admission of claims.②

3. Jurisprudential Analysis

The jurisprudential foundation of this paragraph lies in clearly delineating the “power to advance the procedure” from the “power to determine the merits”.

On the procedural level, failure to submit pleadings is a form of procedural passivity and should not paralyze the arbitral proceedings as a whole. The rule rejects the logic that default necessarily leads to procedural stagnation or termination, aiming to prevent parties from employing procedural inaction as a delaying tactic, thereby safeguarding efficiency and procedural stability.

On the merits level, failure to submit a Statement of Defense does not amount to a “deemed admission” of the opposing party’s factual allegations. Modern arbitration rejects the simplistic presumption that silence equals loss, and emphasizes that the substantive legitimacy of an award must rest on evidentiary review and legal judgment, rather than being rendered solely due to one party’s passivity.

This paragraph also reflects the principle of proportionality. If the claimant fails to satisfy the minimum procedural requirements to activate its claims, the proceedings may be terminated; if the respondent fails to exercise its defense rights, the proceedings continue while preserving the fundamental safeguard that it does not automatically lose. This differentiated treatment avoids wasted procedural resources while maintaining substantive fairness between the parties.

4. Practical Guidance

(1) For the claimant: Where the Notice of Arbitration filed at the commencement stage already fully sets out the claims, factual basis, and legal grounds, and no substantive written supplementation is intended thereafter, it is advisable to clarify in writing in a timely manner whether the claimant elects to “treat the Notice of Arbitration as the Application for Arbitration”. This can remove procedural uncertainty and avoid the risk of termination due to formal defects.

(2) For the respondent: Even if objective reasons prevent the respondent from submitting a complete Statement of Defense (or a response to the Arbitration Notice) within the prescribed time, it should at least file a brief response within the time limit to state its basic position, provide an explanation of circumstances, and formally apply to the tribunal for an extension. This helps avoid being deemed to have defaulted “without sufficient reasons”, which could result in loss of later participation opportunities.

(3) Counterclaims / set-off claims: Claimants should pay special attention that counterclaims or set-off claims have relative independence in the proceedings. Neglecting to respond may not only allow the procedure to be advanced in a default mode, but may also place the claimant in a substantively disadvantaged position by failing to respond to merits arguments in time.

(4) Review of prerequisites: Before determining that a party is in default, the tribunal should first examine and confirm that “proper notice” has been satisfied and effective service has occurred, and that the commencement of the time limit can be evidenced. “Proper notice” requires consideration of three elements: the scope of matters to be notified, the reasonableness of the service address, the compliance of the method of service, and the traceability of service effectiveness. Reasonableness of the address refers to whether, in light of the law of the seat and applicable rules on service addresses, the information constitutes an agreed or legally valid address. Compliance of the service method requires, subject to arbitral confidentiality, that service records are retained and that methods such as third-party witnessing or entrusted service comply with the parties’ agreement or the Rules, while also taking into account the requirements of the supervisory court system at the seat. Traceability of effectiveness concerns whether actual service is supported by evidence and whether substituted service has a legal basis. It is also advisable to retain complete service records, electronic acknowledgements, or system logs for possible judicial review.

(5) Assessment of reasons: Where a party claims “sufficient reasons”, it is advisable to record the tribunal’s determination in writing (e.g., by procedural order or correspondence) and briefly state the factors considered in accepting or rejecting the reasons. Examples include changes in internal corporate governance structure and delays in cross-border evidence collection, thereby creating a traceable and reviewable procedural record.

(6) Drafting of the award: In a default award, the tribunal should adhere to adjudicatory principles such as basing findings on facts, grounding conclusions on evidence, and applying the law, and should avoid expressions such as “since the respondent did not file a defense, all claims of the claimant are presumed to be established.” Default in itself does not shift the burden of proof nor produce a legal effect of factual admission. The tribunal must still conduct substantive review of the claimant’s evidence and make independent findings of fact and determinations of law. The award should clearly present the evidentiary analysis and legal reasoning.

Paragraph (2) Legal Effects of the Claimant’s Default or Withdrawal from the Hearing

1. Textual Analysis

This paragraph provides that, after proper notice, where the claimant fails to appear at the hearing without justifiable reasons, or withdraws from the hearing midway without the tribunal’s permission, it shall have the legal effect of being “deemed to have withdrawn the Application for Arbitration”. It further emphasizes that this effect does not affect the tribunal’s continued conduct of default proceedings in respect of any counterclaim submitted by the respondent.

This design contains two important innovations:

First, it regulates “mid-hearing withdrawal” alongside “non-attendance”. In arbitral practice, a party’s unilateral departure after a hearing has commenced is more complex than complete non-attendance, often raising disputes as to whether the proceedings may continue and whether what has already taken place remains valid. By treating mid-hearing withdrawal as a parallel form of conduct and assigning it the same procedural consequences, this paragraph enhances the tribunal’s certainty and authority in addressing such circumstances.

Second, it clarifies the independence of counterclaim proceedings. The “deemed withdrawal of the Application for Arbitration” applies only to the claimant’s principal claim and does not automatically terminate the arbitral proceedings as a whole. Where the respondent has submitted a counterclaim, the tribunal may continue to hear the counterclaim and render an award on it. This prevents the claimant from “holding hostage” the respondent’s procedural interests through its own default and reflects respect for overall efficiency and balanced protection of party rights.

2. Comparative Law Perspective

The Model Law and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021) adopt a more general approach: where a party, after proper notice, fails to appear at a hearing without justifiable reasons, the tribunal may continue the proceedings and render an award on the basis of the evidence before it, emphasizing the sustainability of the proceedings. ③The ICC and SIAC rules likewise generally recognize that one party’s failure to attend does not prevent the arbitration from continuing.④ This paragraph directly specifies the consequence for the claimant’s principal claim at the rule level, reducing room for procedural disputes, improving predictability, and facilitating a clear procedural pathway for tribunals where the claimant defaults.

3. Practical Guidance

Guidance for parties:

(1) Where an adjournment is genuinely necessary, a written application should be made before the hearing in accordance with the Rules and any procedural orders, supported by relevant materials;

(2) In remote hearings, where network, device, or platform failures occur, the party should immediately explain the situation through email, telephone, platform messaging, etc., and preserve records, to avoid being mistakenly deemed to have “withdrawn mid-hearing without justifiable reasons”;

(3) If the claimant intends to withdraw the principal claim, it is preferable to do so by an explicit written withdrawal rather than by passive non-attendance as a “de facto withdrawal”, so as to avoid disputes over cost allocation or procedural issues.

Guidance for tribunals:

(1) Before applying this paragraph, the tribunal should confirm that “proper notice” has been satisfied and should conduct at least a minimum review of the reasons for default;

(2) In mid-hearing withdrawal cases, the tribunal should consider whether objective impediments exist, such as interruption of interpretation, technical failure, or urgent health issues;

(3) Where a counterclaim exists, the tribunal should promptly clarify, by procedural order or other written means, subsequent hearing arrangements, the burden of proof, and the focus of issues for the hearing.

Paragraph (3) Legal Effects of the Respondent’s Default or Withdrawal from the Hearing

1. Textual Analysis

This paragraph provides that, after proper notice, where the respondent fails to appear at the hearing without justifiable reasons, or withdraws from the hearing midway without the tribunal’s permission, the following legal effects arise: first, the tribunal may continue default proceedings on the claimant’s principal claim; second, where the respondent has submitted a counterclaim, the counterclaim shall be deemed withdrawn.

This provision establishes a clear two-tier structure. First, it advances adjudication on the principal claim: the respondent’s default does not prevent the tribunal from continuing to hear and decide the claimant’s claims, reflecting the basic principle that arbitration does not stall due to one party’s passive conduct. Second, it allocates procedural responsibility for the counterclaim: the respondent, as the counterclaimant, bears procedural obligations comparable to those of a claimant. Its default constitutes a passive abandonment of its own claim, and the Rules deem the counterclaim withdrawn, reflecting the symmetry between procedural rights and obligations.

This differentiated approach responds precisely to the respondent’s “dual capacity” in arbitration. Where it acts only as the defending party, default primarily results in diminution of its defense rights; where it also initiates a counterclaim, it must bear the same claim-prosecution responsibility as a claimant. The Rules accordingly impose layered regulation, safeguarding continuity while maintaining procedural fairness.

2. Comparative Law Perspective

As noted above, the principle that “a party’s unjustified default after proper notice does not prevent the tribunal from continuing the proceedings” is widely established in international commercial arbitration legislation and practice. Building on that common principle, this paragraph further directly links the respondent’s default to the effect of its counterclaim by providing that “the counterclaim shall be deemed withdrawn”. This helps deter opportunistic conduct whereby a respondent might seek to preserve a counterclaim as a “procedural bargaining chip” while defaulting, preventing improper abuse of procedural rights and maintaining overall fairness and efficiency.

3. Practical Guidance

Guidance for parties:

(1) Assess default risks: Even if the respondent decides not to attend, it should consider submitting written defense submissions, evidence, or legal arguments, so that the tribunal can fully consider its position in default proceedings and reduce the risk of total loss of procedural influence.

(2) Take counterclaim prosecution seriously: Where a counterclaim has been submitted, the respondent should ensure that authorization, evidence preparation, and hearing arrangements are in place. The obligation to advance a counterclaim is no different from that of a claimant, and default will directly result in the counterclaim being deemed withdrawn; this consequence is irreversible.

(3) Prevent objective impediments in advance: Cross-border parties should reserve sufficient time for internal approvals, authorization signatures, notarization/legalization, translation, and related preparations, to avoid inability to attend due to inadequate preparation and being deemed to have defaulted “without justifiable reasons”.

Guidance for tribunals:

(1) Strictly examine prerequisites: Before commencing default proceedings, the tribunal should confirm that “proper notice” has been effectively served and conduct at least a minimum substantive review of the default reasons to ensure procedural propriety. Objective impediments such as technical failures in remote hearings should be reasonably assessed.

(2) Record the deemed withdrawal of counterclaims: With respect to the “counterclaim deemed withdrawn” disposition, it is advisable to expressly record in the hearing minutes or the award the rule provision relied upon, as well as the scope and effect of the withdrawal.

(3) Maintain substantive review standards: Default proceedings are not “judgment by default”. The tribunal must still independently and carefully assess the probative value of the claimant’s evidence and the reasonableness of the legal claims, and should not lower evidentiary standards or simplify fact-finding merely because the respondent is absent. The award should be grounded in substantive review of the evidence on record and reflect arbitration’s fairness and professionalism.

Paragraph (4) Handling of Late Evidence Submission

1. Textual Analysis

The normative design of this paragraph reflects a cautious and pragmatic balance. It does not simply provide that “non-submission equals adverse inference” or “automatic waiver of defense rights”; instead, it adopts the more rigorous formulation of “render an award on the basis of the evidence already submitted”.

The tribunal need not wait indefinitely due to one party’s delay or passive approach to evidence production; progress of the proceedings should not be improperly obstructed by unilateral conduct. Yet the tribunal must still return to the existing evidentiary record and conduct comprehensive review and determination, rather than mechanically imposing adverse consequences.

At the same time, “documents, physical exhibits, or other evidence” is an open-ended formulation capable of covering a wide range of evidence commonly seen in modern international commercial arbitration, such as electronic data, technical parameters, model outputs, system logs, samples, and original records, demonstrating strong adaptability and forward-looking suitability.

2. Comparative Law Perspective

The Model Law and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021)⑤ both recognize that where a party, after proper notice or at the tribunal’s request, fails without justifiable reasons to submit evidence, the tribunal has authority to continue the proceedings and render an award based on the evidence on record. Coordination between evidentiary duties and procedural efficiency has become a generally accepted foundational procedural rule in international commercial arbitration. This paragraph is functionally similar to the rules of the LCIA, SIAC, and HKIAC,⑥ which address non-production of evidence through the tribunal’s case management powers and ultimately converge on “rendering an award based on the evidence already submitted”. Moreover, by expressly situating “the consequences of non-production” within the “default proceedings” framework, this paragraph makes the structure more complete and facilitates direct reliance by tribunals.

3. Practical Guidance

Recommendations for parties:

(1) If a party cannot submit evidence on time, it should promptly explain the reasons to the tribunal and apply for an extension, to avoid being deemed to have failed to submit “without stating reasons”;

(2) For complex evidence requiring third-party retrieval, cross-border collection, data recovery, translation, or technical processing, it is advisable to report progress and obstacles to the tribunal in advance;

(3) Even if one cannot submit everything at once, it is recommended to submit an evidence list, partial evidence, or substitute materials first to demonstrate cooperation.

Guidance for tribunals:

(1) In evidentiary directions or procedural orders, the tribunal should specify as clearly as possible the scope, form, deadlines, and consequences of late submission, and serve them in writing on all parties;

(2) The tribunal should conduct necessary review of the reasons provided, distinguishing objective impediments from subjective delay;

(3) If invoking this paragraph in the award, it is advisable to explain how the existing evidence sufficiently supports key factual findings, to strengthen the reasoning and persuasive force of the award.

III. Interface with the New Arbitration Law

Article 83 of the new Arbitration Law, by listing statutory grounds for setting aside an award in a manner that inversely requires that “the arbitral tribunal shall afford the respondent a full opportunity to present its case”, and Article 36, which provides that “failure to submit a Statement of Defense shall not affect the conduct of the arbitral proceedings”, together strengthen procedural safeguards.⑦ Article 31 of the Rules translates these requirements into specific, operable adjudicatory norms. By setting conditional thresholds such as “proper notice”, “sufficient reasons”, “within the time limit”, and “fails to state reasons”, it builds a complete procedural record chain from notice and service, time-limit setting, and reason review to consequence determination. Each step of the tribunal’s application of Article 31 is evidence-based, forming a traceable procedural file. When an award enters judicial review, the tribunal can thereby demonstrate clearly to the court that the party had a full opportunity to participate, and that the consequences of default arose from the party’s own procedural conduct. At the same time, the rule logic of Article 31—“failure to defend does not automatically constitute admission”, “default does not automatically suspend the proceedings”, and “an award may be rendered on the basis of evidence already submitted”—provides a normative foundation for constructing robust procedural reasoning in awards, ensuring that the arbitral process complies with due process requirements while significantly enhancing stability and enforceability.

IV. Conclusion

Through its four-paragraph structure, Article 31 systematically establishes a default-proceedings mechanism with clear hierarchy and self-consistent logic.

Paragraph (1), addressing failure to submit the Application for Arbitration or the Statement of Defense, differentiates between party roles and provides for termination or continuation, reflecting flexibility in advancing proceedings; Paragraphs (2) and (3) regulate non-attendance and mid-hearing withdrawal, establishing procedural discipline through deemed withdrawal while preserving an independent space for adjudication of counterclaims and achieving symmetry of rights and obligations; Paragraph (4) addresses failure to submit evidence on time by empowering the tribunal to “render an award on the basis of the evidence already submitted”, achieving a cautious balance between efficiency and fairness.

On the foundation of the internationally accepted principle that default does not automatically equal admission of claims or automatic defeat, Article 31 enhances operability through more refined drafting. While functionally aligned with the Model Law and the rules of major arbitral institutions, its classification-based approach and front-loaded consequence design provide tribunals with recordable and reviewable tools for procedural governance.

With respect to the core objectives emphasized by the new Arbitration Law—procedural propriety and the credibility of awards—Article 31 provides concrete rule-level support. For parties, it sends a clear procedural signal: passive non-cooperation cannot block the progress of proceedings, and once procedural opportunities are waived, the corresponding consequences must be borne by the party itself.

①UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in 2006 art 25. Default of a party, which provides that: “Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, if, without showing sufficient cause, 

(a) the claimant fails to communicate his statement of claim in accordance with article 23(1), the arbitral tribunal shall terminate the proceedings;

(b) the respondent fails to communicate his statement of defence in accordance with article 23(1), the arbitral tribunal shall continue the proceedings without treating such failure in itself as an admission of the claimant’s allegations;

(c) any party fails to appear at a hearing or to produce documentary evidence, the arbitral tribunal may continue the proceedings and make the award on the evidence before it.

UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021) art 30.1, which provides that: “ 1. If, within the period of time fixed by these Rules or the arbitral tribunal, without showing sufficient cause:

(a) The claimant has failed to communicate its statement of claim, the arbitral tribunal shall issue an order for the termination of the arbitral proceedings, unless there are remaining matters that may need to be decided and the arbitral tribunal considers it appropriate to do so; 

(b) The respondent has failed to communicate its response to the notice of arbitration or its statement of defence, the arbitral tribunal shall order that the proceedings continue, without treating such failure in itself as an admission of the claimant’s allegations; the provisions of this subparagraph also apply to a claimant’s failure to submit a defence to a counterclaim or to a claim for the purpose of a set-off.

②ICC 2021 Arbitration Rules art. 6.3), which provided that: “If any party against which a claim has been made does not submit an Answer, or if any party raises one or more pleas concerning the existence, validity or scope of the arbitration agreement or concerning whether all of the claims made in the arbitration may be determined together in a single arbitration, the arbitration shall proceed and any question of jurisdiction or of whether the claims may be determined together in that arbitration shall be decided directly by the arbitral tribunal, unless the Secretary General refers the matter to the Court for its decision pursuant to Article 6(4).

LCIA Rules（2020）,which provides that: “Art.2.4.....Failure to deliver any or any part of a Response within time or at all shall not (by itself) preclude the Respondent from denying any claim or from advancing any defence, counterclaim or cross-claim in the arbitration.

Art.15.8 If the Respondent fails to submit a Statement of Defence or the Claimant a Statement of Defence to Counterclaim, or if at any time any party fails to avail itself of the opportunity to present its written case in the manner required under this Article 15 or as otherwise ordered by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal may nevertheless proceed with the arbitration (with or without a hearing) and make one or more awards.”

SIAC Rules（2025）art.44 Non-participation and Non-compliance, which provides that: “44.1 If the Claimant fails to submit a Statement of Claim within the time specified by the Tribunal, the Tribunal may, after considering the 

views of the parties, issue an order terminating the arbitration in accordance with Rule 43, unless there are remaining matters which require determination.

44.2 If the Respondent fails to submit a Statement of Defence within the time specified by the Tribunal, or if at any point any party fails to avail itself of the opportunity to present its case in the manner directed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal may proceed with the arbitration without treating such failure in itself as an admission of any allegations.

44.3 If, without showing sufficient cause, any party fails or refuses to comply with these Rules or with any direction, decision, ruling, order, or award of the Tribunal, or to attend any meeting or hearing, the Tribunal may proceed with the arbitration. In these circumstances, the Tribunal may impose such sanctions as it deems appropriate and make an award on the evidence before it.”

HKIAC 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules art 26 Default , which provided that: “26.1 If, within the time limit set by the arbitral tribunal, the Claimant has failed to communicate its written statement without showing sufficient cause for such failure, the arbitral tribunal may terminate the arbitration unless another party has brought a claim and wishes the arbitration to continue, in which case the arbitral tribunal may proceed with the arbitration in respect of the other party’s claim.

26.2 If, within the time limit set by the arbitral tribunal, the Respondent has failed to communicate its written statement without showing sufficient cause for such failure, the arbitral tribunal may proceed with the 

arbitration notwithstanding such failure. 

26.3 If any of the parties, duly notified under these Rules, fails to present its case in accordance with these Rules including as directed by the arbitral tribunal without showing sufficient cause for such failure, the arbitral tribunal 

may proceed with the arbitration and make an award on the basis of the evidence before it.”

③UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in 2006 art 25. Default of a party, which provides that: “Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, if, without showing sufficient cause, ..............(c) any party fails to appear at a hearing or to produce documentary evidence, the arbitral tribunal may continue the proceedings and make the award on the evidence before it.

UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021) art 30.2, which provides that: “If a party, duly notified under these Rules, fails to appear at a hearing, without showing sufficient cause for such failure, the arbitral tribunal may proceed with the arbitration.”

④ICC 2021 Arbitration Rules art. 26.2), which provided that: “If any of the parties, although duly summoned, fails to appear without valid excuse, the arbitral tribunal shall have the power to proceed with the hearing.”

SIAC Rules（2025）art.44.3 , which provides that: “44.3 If, without showing sufficient cause, any party fails or refuses to comply with these Rules or with any direction, decision, ruling, order, or award of the Tribunal, or to attend any meeting or hearing, the Tribunal may proceed with the arbitration. In these circumstances, the Tribunal may impose such sanctions as it deems appropriate and make an award on the evidence before it.”

⑤UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021) art 30.3, which provides that: “If a party, duly invited by the arbitral tribunal to produce documents, exhibits or other evidence, fails to do so within the established period of time, without showing sufficient cause for such failure, the arbitral tribunal may make the award on the evidence before it.”

⑥ LCIA Rules（2020）Art.15.8, which provides that: “If the Respondent fails to submit a Statement of Defence or the Claimant a Statement of Defence to Counterclaim, or if at any time any party fails to avail itself of the opportunity to present its written case in the manner required under this Article 15 or as otherwise ordered by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal may nevertheless proceed with the arbitration (with or without a hearing) and make one or more awards.”

SIAC Rules（2025）art.44.3 , which provides that: “If, without showing sufficient cause, any party fails or refuses to comply with these Rules or with any direction, decision, ruling, order, or award of the Tribunal, or to attend any meeting or hearing, the Tribunal may proceed with the arbitration. In these circumstances, the Tribunal may impose such sanctions as it deems appropriate and make an award on the evidence before it.”

HKIAC 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules art 26.3, which provided that: “If any of the parties, duly notified under these Rules, fails to present its case in accordance with these Rules including as directed by the arbitral tribunal without showing sufficient cause for such failure, the arbitral tribunal may proceed with the arbitration and make an award on the basis of the evidence before it.”

⑦Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision), which provides that: “Article 83 Where a party presents evidence that a foreign-related arbitration award falls under any of the following circumstances, the people's court shall, after examination and verification by a collegial panel formed by the people's court, rule to revoke the award....(2) The respondent was not notified of the appointment of an arbitrator or the commencement of the arbitration proceedings, or was unable to present its case for other reasons not attributable to the respondent;........

Article 36 ...........After receiving the copy of the application for arbitration,the respondent shall submit a written answer to the arbitral institution within the time limit specified in the rules of arbitration. After receiving the written answer, the arbitral institution shall serve a copy thereof on the claimant within the time limit specified in the rules of arbitration. Failure on the part of the respondent to submit a written answer shall not affect the progress of thearbitration proceedings.”