On 1 January 2025, a new edition of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre's Arbitration Rules ('2025 SIAC Rules') comes into effect.
Being the result of a rigorous public consultation, the 2025 SIAC Rules mark the first major update to the Centre's arbitration offering in nine years.
What is new, you ask? Well, the changes are plenty. Yet, in this post, I will look at the most noteworthy, in my opinion.
JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED
In the 2018 Queen Mary Survey, more than one-third of respondents identified the lack of speed as one of the worst characteristics of international arbitration. To address the stakeholders' concerns, the 2025 SIAC Rules introduce a number of procedural innovations and changes to the existing provisions.
First, the parties now have an alternative to a time-tested 'expedited procedure' - a streamlined procedure, which applies if parties agree, or where the amount in dispute does not exceed SGD 1 million and the SIAC President does not decide otherwise (r. 13 & Sch. 2). Under the streamlined procedure, the parties have only three days to agree on the sole arbitrator, failing which she would be appointed by the SIAC President. The sole arbitrator shall make an award, albeit in a summary form, within three months from the date she was appointed, 'unless the Registrar extends the time for making such final award' (Sch. 2, ¶15).
Second, the amount in dispute threshold for the application of an existing expedited procedure has been significantly increased. Under the 2025 SIAC Rules, the expedited procedure can be invoked if the amount in dispute does not exceed SGD 10 million (SGD 6 million under the 2016 SIAC Rules), or all parties agree (r. 14.2). The expedited procedure may also apply when the amount in dispute does not exceed SGD 1 million at the time the relevant application is made 'and the President has determined ... that the Streamlined Procedure shall not apply' or 'the circumstances of the case warrant' its application (ibid).
Third, in addition to the early dismissal procedure, whose timeframe, however, the 2025 SIAC Rules reduce from 60 to 45 days, the Rules have introduced a new tool to the arbitral tribunal's procedural arsenal - the preliminary determination (r. 48). These provisions allow a party to seek a final and binding determination of any issue in dispute, be it legal or factual, on a preliminary basis, provided certain conditions are met. For instance, the requesting party shall convince the arbitral tribunal that 'the determination of the issue on a preliminary basis is likely to contribute to savings of time and costs and a more efficient and expeditious resolution of the dispute' (r. 46.1). If the arbitral tribunal is satisfied, they can proceed with the preliminary determination, they shall render a requested decision within 90 days.
Last, while the 2016 SIAC Rules required arbitrators to submit their draft awards to the SIAC Secretariat for scrutiny within 45 days from the closure of the proceedings, the 2025 SIAC Rules give arbitral tribunals 90 days 'from the date of submission of the last directed oral or written submission in respect of the proceedings to which the award pertains, unless the Registrar determines otherwise' (r. 53.2). The rationale behind this change is quite simple. The closure of the proceedings depends on the arbitrators' declaration, and to allow themselves more time to draft an award, some tend to delay declaring the proceedings closed. By linking the respective deadline to an objective date, the 2025 SIAC Rules seek to eliminate this practice.
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY DIAL '12'
It is quite often the case that a party commencing arbitration is in need of urgent interim or conservative relief against a prospective respondent or its assets. Who shall heed the party's respective prayer? Until quite recently, the options available to the party were limited to requesting interim measures from national courts or wait the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Neither was ideal for reasons obvious.
Everything changed 2006 when the figure of an emergency arbitrator entered the scene. At present, every major institution allows the party seeking interim measures that cannot await formation of the arbitral tribunal to request appointment of an emergency arbitrator. The SIAC is no exception.
The emergency arbitration provisions were first introduced to SIAC arbitration ecosystem in 2010 and remained largely unchanged until now. To wit, while the 2016 SIAC Rules provide that the emergency arbitration application shall be filed together or following the Notice of Arbitration, the 2025 SIAC Rules allow the party to also request appointment of an emergency arbitrator before submitting the Notice. Note, however, unless the Notice is filed within seven days from the date when the emergency arbitration application is made, the latter 'shall be considered as withdrawn on a without prejudice basis unless the Registrar extends the time' (Sch. ¶1(6)). It appears that this provision was designed to prevent the potential use (or rather abuse) of an emergency arbitration procedure as a leverage in contentious negotiations.
Further, acknowledging that sometimes the notification of a prospective respondent may frustrate (if not defeat) the purpose of interim measures sought, the 2025 SIAC Rules permit the filing of the emergency arbitration application on an ex parte basis together with the application 'for a preliminary order directing a party not to frustrate the purpose of the emergency interim or conservatory measure requested' (Sch. ¶25).
The application for a preliminary order is subject to the SIAC President's determination and, if allowed, would result in the appointment of an emergency arbitrator without notice to the other parties. Upon the appointment, the emergency arbitrator shall decide the application within 24 hours and submit the respective order to the SIAC Secretariat, which shall communicate it to all parties involved (Sch. ¶28).
Following the Secretariat's communication, the applicant has 12 hours to deliver or take steps to deliver all submissions made before and communications with the emergency arbitrator to the other parties and confirm the delivery/explain the steps taken to the Registrar and the emergency arbitrator. If the applicant fails to do so, the preliminary order shall expiry within three days from the date it was issued. Otherwise, the preliminary order shall expire within 14 days of its issuance, unless the emergency arbitrator rescinds it earlier, having heard the other parties' objections (Sch. ¶¶29,33).
WHOSE MONEY: DISCLOSURE OF A TPF
In a short span of time, third-party funding ('TPF'), or financing of the proceedings by an unrelated party, typically, in exchange for a portion of a final award, has become the norm. While TPF is undoubtedly an effective risk-sharing mechanism and arguably the only option for an impecunious party to get access to 'arbitration justice', the wide adoption of this practice has led to the emergence of new issues institutions, arbitrators, counsel, and parties now have to address. One is the potential for a conflict of interest.
In 2017, shortly after third-party funding was allowed in international arbitration seated in Singapore, SIAC issued a dedicated Practice Note granting arbitral tribunals the power to order disclosure of any funding arrangement and its details. Building on this often-referred-to instrument and in line with institutional practice worldwide, the 2025 SIAC Rules require a funded party to disclose 'the existence of any third-party funding agreement and the identity and contact details of the third-party funder in its Notice or Response or as soon as practicable upon concluding a third-party funding agreement' (r. 38.1).
Further, after the constitution of the tribunal, the 2025 SIAC Rules expressly bar any party from entering into a funding arrangement 'that may give rise to a conflict of interest' with any arbitrator and authorize the tribunal to 'direct the party to withdraw' from such an arrangement. It is noteworthy that a party's failure to comply with the disclosure obligation or any TPF-related direction of the tribunal may lead to 'an order or award for sanctions, damages, or costs' against a defaulting party (r. 38.7).
TEMPORAL SCOPE OF APPLICATION
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the 2025 SIAC Rules apply to all proceedings, where the Registrar receives the Notice of Arbitration on or after 1 January 2025, regardless of the date when the parties entered into the arbitration agreement (r. 1.5 & r. 6.3).
CONCLUSION
Although it remains to be seen how many provisions of the 2025 SIAC Rules would operate in practice (e.g. the arbitral tribunal's power to sanction a non-compliant funded party, which I expect to be exercised in the rarest of scenarios), one can safely conclude that the new Rules will enhance the efficiency of SIAC arbitrations thus cementing the Centre's position as one of the premier dispute resolution venues.
* * *
Singapore International Arbitration Centre is an independent arbitration institution established in 1991. 2021 Queen Mary Survey puts SIAC among the top arbitral centres in the world and recognizes it as the preferred provider of ADR services in the Asia-Pacific. To learn more about SIAC visit: https://siac.org.sg.