Leah Elizabeth Thomas in this paper claims that a suitable timeline for arbitration could prevent unnecessary delays in the proceedings and expedite the process.

Abstract

Arbitration is set apart from other forms of dispute resolution
owing to the fact that it is a speedier and more expedient form
of dispute resolution. However, this is not the case when the
proceedings are drawn out due to a delayed award. Delays can
be easily determined when the parties to the arbitration have
agreed upon a fixed timeline in their agreement, but where the
agreement is silent on a deadline, such delays have to be
determined on a case to case basis. In most cases of delayed
awards, Courts uphold the arbitrator’s decision unless there is
serious harm caused to the parties arising from the delay.
Therefore, a delay can be grounds for parties to challenge an
award or grounds to refuse recognition and enforcement of the
award, but only if Courts find that such delay has caused grave
harm to the interests of the party. A solution to mitigate a delay
is to include a deadline within the arbitration agreement.
Various national arbitration laws and institutional rules have
provided for timelines within their provisions. Electing such
laws or rules to govern the arbitration would de facto provide
the parties with a deadline. However, while choosing a
deadline, parties should keep in mind the nature of the dispute
and fix a flexible and practical timeline which would suit the
dispute. To a certain extent, the arbitrator must be empowered
to extend the deadline if the matter calls for it. It may be
concluded that a suitable timeline for arbitration could
prevent unnecessary delays in the proceedings and expedite
the process.