Singapore: A Dispute Resolution: Arbitration: The Elite Overview

Recent International Arbitration Decisions

Significant developments in 2025 in relation to international arbitration are summarised below.

The SIAC Rules 2025

The 7^th edition of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules came into force on 1 January 2025. Key updates and changes from the previous edition include:

1. the introduction of the Streamlined Procedure, which is designed for cases of lower value and complexity and which requires an award to be made within three months of the constitution of the tribunal – this complements the existing Expedited Procedure which requires an award to be made within six months of the constitution of the tribunal;
2. enhancements to the Emergency Arbitrator procedure including, importantly, the introduction of the right to make an application for a preliminary order directing a party not to frustrate the purpose of the emergency interim or conservatory measure requested on a without notice or ex parte basis; and
3. provisions expressly requiring parties to disclose the existence of third-party funding agreements and the details of the funder, and a prohibition on parties entering into any third-party funding agreement which may give rise to a conflict of interest with a member of the tribunal (after it is constituted).

An arbitrator’s duty of independence and impartiality when adjudicating on related but separate arbitrations

In DJP v DJO (2025), SGCA(I) 2, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision to set aside an award on the ground that it had been rendered in breach of natural justice rules.

The tribunal had impermissibly used two previous awards issued in other arbitrations (involving the same presiding arbitrator and respondent but different co-arbitrators and claimants), as templates, from which a substantial portion of the award was prepared.

The Court of Appeal observed that where an award is substantially copied from another source, that may implicate the fundamental rules of natural justice. The Court of Appeal observed that:

1. where the source of the copied material is a party’s submissions, it will be necessary to consider whether the way in which this was done gives rise to the reasonable suspicion of an unthinking adoption of that party’s position;
2. where the source of the copied material is an external academic source (without proper attribution), that may suggest a lack of professionalism but not a breach of natural justice; and
3. where the source of the copied material is a related award, much will likely depend on the nature of the material that is reproduced, the degree of proximity between the dispute at hand and the proceedings from which that material emanated.

On the facts, the Court found that the integrity of the decision-making process had been compromised. There were material differences between the arbitrations that the tribunal had failed to grapple with by lifting paragraphs of the award. Further, there were errors in the award which suggested that the tribunal might not have applied its mind to the decision-making process.

In DOI v DOJ (2025), SGHC(I) 15, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) also set aside an award that was cut and pasted from the awards in prior related arbitrations on similar grounds.

These cases show that the Singapore Courts will uphold the right to due process and a fair hearing in arbitrations. They recognise that the emphasis on finality in arbitration means that particular attention must be paid to the integrity of the process by which a decision is reached.

Contractual and non-contractual anti-suit injunctions and sovereign immunity

In Cooperativa Muratori and Cementisti – CMC di Ravenna, Italy v Department of Water Supply & Sewerage Management, Kathmandu (2025), SGHC(I) 16, the SICC granted an interim anti-suit injunction to restrain the defendant from pursuing an application in Nepal for an order that the tribunal’s decision that Singapore is the seat of arbitration be set aside.

The SICC clarified that the constituent elements for contractual anti-suit injunctions differed from non-contractual anti-suit injunctions. Contractual anti-suit injunctions are those that are granted to restrain the defendant from pursuing foreign proceedings in breach of a jurisdiction clause or arbitration agreement. An applicant seeking a contractual anti-suit injunction must show that:

1. the defendant was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court;
2. the foreign proceedings were in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause or arbitration agreement between the parties; and
3. there were no strong reasons to decline enforcement of the parties’ agreement.

This test differs from those that have to be established in applications for non-contractual anti-suit injunctions, which are injunctions sought to restrain the defendant from pursuing foreign proceedings that (i) unduly interfere with the process, jurisdiction or judgments of the forum court; or (ii) amount to vexatious or oppressive conduct. In those applications, the test set out in the Court of Appeal’s decision in John Reginald Stott Kirkham v Trane US Inc (2009), 4 SLR(R) 428 applies.

Further, as the defendant in this case was an entity linked to the government of Nepal, the SICC considered this a case in which it had a duty to consider an issue of sovereign immunity on its own motion under Section 3(2) of the State Immunity Act 1979. In doing so, the SICC considered that anti-suit injunctions fall within the Court’s “enforcement jurisdiction” (ie, jurisdiction to enforce by legal process orders made in the exercise of the court’s adjudicative jurisdiction) as opposed to “adjudicative jurisdiction” (ie, jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims against foreign states) and therefore cannot be issued against a state without clear and unambiguous reference to the state’s consent or a specific waiver.

On the facts, however, the SICC concluded that the defendant was not entitled to sovereign immunity as the transaction that was the subject of the arbitration was a commercial one and did not concern the exercise of sovereign authority.

The court’s jurisdiction to review administrative decisions of the SIAC Registrar

In DMZ v DNA (2025), SGHC 31, the High Court considered an application for declaratory relief in relation to the date of commencement of several arbitrations and for an order setting aside the SIAC Registrar’s decision on that matter.

The SIAC Registrar had initially deemed the arbitrations commenced on a date later than the notices of arbitration (NOAs) had been filed, but later reconsidered this decision on the defendants’ application and held that the arbitrations were deemed to have been commenced on the date of the NOAs. The date of commencement in that case was material to the question whether or not the claims were time-barred.

The claimant applied to the High Court for declarations as to the commencement date of the arbitrations and considering the SIAC Registrar’s decision to reconsider was unlawful and/or a breach of the SIAC Rules, and regarding an order setting aside that decision. The High Court dismissed that application, holding that it did not have jurisdiction to review the SIAC Registrar’s administrative decision and that the claimant’s application was an abuse of process. It also observed that there was no merit to the application as the SIAC Registrar was entitled under the SIAC Rules to review its own decision, and that the SIAC Rules in fact prohibited the claimant from seeking to appeal or revisit that decision.