Arbitration in London is five times more expensive than in the US, and QCs are partly to blame for the high cost, it has been claimed.



At two different events last week, commentators said more far-reaching measures must be taken to reduce the cost and time taken by international arbitration. Several speakers said the high cost of arbitration in England was a threat to its standing.



Robert Hammesfahr, global head of reinsurance claims at Swiss Re and a former attorney at US firm Cozen O'Connor, said at a British Insurance Law Association (BILA) event that 'the UK is, in my experience, five to ten times as much as US arbitration'.



However, he did not spare US lawyers from criticism - they have been essentially treating litigation as a bankroll, he said, and there is also a failure to build in arbitration clauses in contracts.



Though many present at both the International Chamber of Commerce international arbitration practitioners' symposium, and BILA's debate on English law and the London insurance market, said there was much to be proud of in English arbitration, cost and time taken were constant concerns.



Martin Hunter, professor of international dispute resolution at Nottingham Law School and a tenant at Essex Court Chambers, said that though reinsurance normally means high-value cases, Mr Hammesfahr's claim had validity.



Just being in London, for example, or using a London firm, would automatically increase costs, he said, but there was another cost loading that should be addressed - the charges of some of the QCs involved.



Prof Hunter, present at the ICC event, said 'it is not so much a question of where the arbitration takes place, as who is handling it'. He had been involved in arbitrations in France, Switzerland and the US that were just as expensive as arbitrations in London.



'If the players are English QCs they tend to adopt procedures that mirror English court procedure,' he added. In other words, long hearings, arbitrators' fees that reflect the QCs' court rates, and the simple fact that English arbitrations, unlike those in the US, contain comprehensive reasons for the award.



Prof Hunter said: 'I am afraid that some QCs are unwittingly putting London's reputation at risk in the international arbitration community. Pricing in the international arbitration market is quite different from their usual practice in the High Court. Their clerks will often talk about Mr X's rate, when they should be thinking about the rate for the job, not the rate for the person.'



Also speaking at the ICC symposium, Lord Steyn said English lawyers should think more internationally to ensure the dominance of the English arbitration market. 'I wonder if English lawyers are far too disinclined to experiment,' the retired Law Lord said.



Rupert White