Introduction
The latest edition of the Queen Mary University of London and White & Case International Arbitration Survey 2025 continued to validate Singapore’s position as a leading seat for international arbitration, sharing the title of the most popular seat with London.
A key plank of Singapore’s success is its nimbleness and efforts to keep pace with change and adopt global best practices and innovations. In this vein, Singapore’s Ministry of Law (“MinLaw“) commissioned the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (“SIDRA“) to conduct a study on Singapore’s international arbitration regime and the International Arbitration Act 1994 (“IAA“), leading to its report on key findings (“SIDRA Report“). Rajah & Tann was proud to have been involved in this process, with Kelvin Poon (Deputy Managing Partner, Head of International Arbitration) involved in the industry focus group and Louis Lau (Associate, International Arbitration) as a co-author.
On 21 March 2025, MinLaw launched a public consultation titled “Public Consultation on the International Arbitration Act 1994 of Singapore” (“Consultation“) which builds on the key findings and proposals of the SIDRA Report. The Consultation seeks feedback on proposed amendments to the IAA on issues including (i) general matters such as a possible right of appeal on questions of law; (ii) matters relating to setting aside applications, such as costs and a possible requirement for leave to appeal; and (iii) matters relating to the tribunal, such as summary disposal powers.
Singapore’s prospective finetuning of the IAA comes at a time when other jurisdictions are likewise amending or preparing to amend their own arbitration regimes. On 18 February 2025, the Arbitration Act 2025 (“2025 Act“) received royal assent in the UK. Meanwhile, India held a public consultation on the draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024 (“Draft Bill“), which concluded on 3 November 2024.
Below, we review the core aspects of the consultation and SIDRA Report, and briefly touch on the amendments introduced by the 2025 Act in the UK and those contemplated by the Draft Bill in India.
General Matters
| Current Position | Consultation Questions | SIDRA Recommendations |
| Right to appeal on points of law
Apart from appeals on jurisdictional rulings and setting aside applications, the IAA does not allow appeals on points of law in arbitral awards, even in cases of serious errors by the tribunal. Other jurisdictions have taken different positions. Hong Kong allows such appeals on an opt-in basis, while the UK allows appeals on an opt-out basis. |
Whether to introduce a right of appeal on points of law on an opt-in basis.
If such a right is introduced, whether the following principles should apply: 1. whether appeals on points of law should be restricted to Singapore law, or extend to foreign or international law; 2. to clarify that the right of appeal is not waived merely by operation of institutional rules that may contain automatic waiver provisions; 3. to expressly require appeals to be decided on the basis of the findings of fact in the award; 4. to provide for the costs of both the court proceedings and the arbitral proceedings; and/or 5. to provide that applications for permission to further appeal from the High Court shall be determined by the appellate court. |
A right of appeal should be introduced on the basis of the proposed principles, with appeals to extend to questions of foreign or international law. |
| Determination of the governing law of the arbitration agreement
At common law, Singapore employs a three-stage approach to determine the governing law of an arbitration agreement. This common law approach considers the (i) express choice of the parties; (ii) implied choice (usually the law of the main contract); or (iii) the law with the closest connection to the arbitration agreement (often the law of the seat). Although the English position was broadly similar to the above approach, the 2025 Act now stipulates that the law of the seat will govern the arbitration agreement, unless expressly agreed otherwise. |
Whether Singapore should (i) retain the current common law approach, (ii) adopt the English position under the 2025 Act, or (iii) enact a statutory choice of law approach in the IAA.
If the latter – whether to largely incorporate the common law approach into the IAA by determining the governing law of the arbitration agreement with reference to: 1. the law that parties expressly designate as applicable to the arbitration agreement; 2. failing which, the law that parties expressly designate as applicable to the underlying contract; and 3. failing which, the law of the seat. |
Singapore should enact a statutory choice of law approach in the IAA, as set out in the consultation question.
Further, where the seat is not stipulated by either the parties’ agreement or the relevant rules of arbitration, the General Division of the High Court (or the appellate court) may determine the seat of arbitration by reference to the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the parties. |
Amendments Related to Court Applications
| Current Position | Consultation Questions | SIDRA Recommendations |
| Whether leave should be required for a party to appeal against a High Court decision
A High Court decision on a setting aside application is appealable to the Court of Appeal as of right. This may not sieve out unmeritorious and vexatious appeals. |
Whether parties should be required to obtain permission to appeal, aligning with practices in the UK and Hong Kong.
If so, whether: 1. this leave requirement should apply to High Court decisions on both setting aside and enforcement applications; and if so, 2. whether the application for permission should be:
MinLaw also seeks input on the time taken for the disposal of setting aside applications in Singapore as compared to other jurisdictions. |
A leave requirement should be introduced, with permission to be obtained from the appellate court. |
| Time limit to file a setting aside application
Singapore currently imposes a strict three-month time limit for filing applications to set aside arbitral awards. Extensions are not permitted even where fraud or corruption is involved. |
1. Whether this time limit should be shortened, similar to the 28-day limit in the UK or the 30-day limit in Switzerland; and
2. Whether courts should have the discretion to extend the time limit in cases involving fraud or corruption. |
The time limit should not be shortened.
The courts should have discretion to extend the time limit, but only for cases involving fraud or corruption.
|
| For successful setting aside applications: Power to make costs orders in respect of the arbitral proceedings
Where an arbitral award is successfully set aside, it falls to the parties to agree how to proceed on the issue of costs in respect of the arbitral proceedings. Singapore courts currently do not have the power to make a costs order, vary the costs award made by the tribunal, or remit the issue of costs back to the tribunal. |
Whether Singapore courts should have the discretion to:
1. make an order in respect of costs of the arbitral proceedings following a successful setting aside application; and/or 2. remit the issue of costs to the tribunal as an exceptional remedy where (i) parties so agree, or (ii) it is in the interest of justice to do so.
|
The court should have discretion to make an order in respect of only the costs of the arbitral proceedings. This should extend to apportioning, but not varying, tribunal fees and institutional fees.
|
| For unsuccessful setting aside applications: Separate costs principles to deter frivolous or unmeritorious applications
At present, the default position on costs is:
|
1. Whether there is evidence that setting aside applications are used to drag out the resolution of a matter and / or the enforcement of an arbitral award;
2. Whether separate costs principles should be adopted for unsuccessful setting aside applications, so as to deter frivolous and unmeritorious applications; and if so, 3. Whether this should be on an indemnity basis or a different framework.
|
No reform should be introduced in this respect. |
| Review of tribunal’s findings on jurisdiction
Currently, Singapore courts conduct a de novo review of a tribunal’s jurisdiction, meaning they do not defer to the tribunal’s prior decisions. Under the 2025 Act, the UK will adopt a more limited review approach, refusing to consider new grounds or evidence unless it could not with reasonable diligence have been put before the tribunal. Evidence will not be reheard save in the interests of justice. |
Whether Singapore should continue with its de novo approach or adopt a limited review to save time and costs, to avoid losing parties from strategically refining their arguments for a court rehearing.
|
A tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction should continue to be subject to a rehearing on a de novo basis.
The courts should have discretion to decide what evidence to receive, and how. This should be implemented by way of new Rules of Court, rather than amendments to the IAA. |
Amendments Related to the Tribunal
| Current Position | Consultation Questions | SIDRA Recommendations |
| Summary disposal powers
The IAA does not explicitly grant arbitral tribunals the power to summarily dispose of cases where one party has no real prospect of success, although the rules of major arbitral institutions provide for this to varying extents. In contrast, the 2025 Act now expressly confers the tribunal with the power to make an award on a summary basis, albeit on an opt-out basis. |
Whether the IAA should be amended to explicitly grant the power to arbitral tribunals to summarily dispose of any issue, claim or defence (or part thereof) in dispute by way of an award, unless parties agree otherwise. | Section 19A of the IAA should be amended to provide for the tribunal’s summary disposal powers on an opt-out basis.
|
UK: Royal Assent for 2025 Act
As indicated above, a number of proposed amendments to the IAA stem from the UK’s 2025 Act. In its press release for the introduction of the Arbitration Bill, the UK Ministry of Justice cited a need to update the Arbitration Act 1996 (“1996 Act“) in the face of “growing competition from other centres such as Singapore and Paris”.
The 2025 Act received royal assent on 24 February 2025 and will be commenced through regulations as soon as practicable. Below, we briefly highlight additional salient revisions which the 2025 Act will implement to the 1996 Act.
- Clarifying the court’s powers in support of emergency arbitrators: The new section 41A of the 1996 Act states that where a party fails to comply with any order or direction of an emergency arbitrator, the emergency arbitrator may make a peremptory order to the same effect. Section 42 is also amended to clarify that the court’s powers to enforce peremptory orders will apply to peremptory orders made by an emergency arbitrator.
- Clarifying the court’s powers in respect of third parties: Section 44(1) of the 1996 Act is amended to clarify that the court may make orders “in relation to a party or any other person [emphasis added]” with respect to the matters set out in section 44(2). These matters include the taking or preservation of evidence, making orders relating to property, and the granting of an interim injunction.
- Jurisdiction of the tribunal: Section 32(1A) is inserted to stipulate that a court must not consider a party’s application to determine any question as to the substantive jurisdiction of the tribunal if the tribunal has already ruled on that question. Section 61 is also amended to clarify that a tribunal may award costs even if it has no substantive jurisdiction.
- Codifying arbitrators’ duty of disclosure: The new section 23A requires both prospective and sitting arbitrators to disclose, as soon as reasonably practical, any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality. In Singapore, this ongoing duty of disclosure is already incorporated by way of Article 12(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.
The amendments in the 2025 Act have been welcomed by the arbitration community, with the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA“) commenting that it provides welcome legal clarity on a number of key issues.
The regime under section 32 of the existing 1996 Act is already significantly different from that in Singapore, as it does not allow a party to challenge a tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction without written agreement of all the other parties to the arbitration or permission from the tribunal (see section 32(2)). The new section 32(1A) underscores this, by expressly providing that a court must not consider a party’s application to determine any question as to the substantive jurisdiction of the tribunal if the tribunal has already ruled on that question.
In contrast, in Singapore, section 10(3) of the IAA allows a party to unilaterally appeal against a tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction, whether a ruling on a preliminary question that it has jurisdiction, or a ruling at any stage of the arbitration that it has no jurisdiction.
India: Consultation on Draft Bill
In contrast to the refinements contemplated by Singapore and the UK, the Draft Bill proposes major changes to India’s arbitration regime under the current Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“ACA“).
- Appellate arbitral tribunals (“AATs”): In a world-first, a new section 34A would empower arbitral institutions to provide for an AAT to entertain setting aside applications. Under an amended section 34, where parties agree to have recourse to an AAT, they may not apply to the courts to set aside an arbitral award.
While an AAT may offer a quicker appellate alternative to the Indian courts and allow for specialised expertise, it also presents many questions. For instance, it is unclear whether AAT decisions will be binding on other AATs, have any persuasive value before the courts, or be publicly available.
The establishment of the AATs is a novel innovation and it appears to be a move to ensure that recourse to the ATTs is to the exclusion of recourse to the courts to set aside an award, so that the length of post-award proceedings and accompanying costs are more controlled. However, the Indian courts will need to be robust in rejecting any and all attempts to set aside decisions of AATs. It can be anticipated that dissatisfied parties may bring applications to challenge decisions of AATs on the same grounds as that ventilated before the AAT or some repackaged version of those arguments. If the Indian courts entertain such challenges, this runs the risk of turning the AATs into an additional step interposed into the process of challenging an award, which will entail more time and costs spent by parties to obtain recourse through arbitration.
- Recognition of the concept of the seat: At present, section 20 of the ACA states that the parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration. Failing such agreement, the tribunal may determine the place of arbitration. Much litigation has taken place over whether this refers to the “seat” or the “venue” of the arbitration. The Draft Bill proposes two different amendments to section 20 to address this. First, by generally replacing “place” with “seat”; second, by specifying that for domestic arbitrations, the seat will be the place where the contract or arbitration agreement is executed or where the cause of action has arisen.
The first proposal is more aligned with international best practices, and gives more effect to the parties’ autonomy. In contrast, the second proposal may foster more ambiguity, particularly in today’s age where contracts may be executed digitally.
- Emergency arbitration: The proposed new section 9A empowers arbitral institutions to provide for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator. An order made by an emergency arbitrator shall be enforced as though it were an order of a tribunal under section 17(2). However, it should be noted that section 17(2) does not apply to arbitrations seated outside India, raising a question as to the enforceability of orders made in an emergency arbitration seated outside India.
It should be noted that emergency arbitration has been promulgated worldwide – for instance, the rules of the International Commercial Court (ICC), LCIA, and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) all provide for emergency arbitration. If section 17(2) were to apply to emergency arbitration, this would help India’s legislative regime to be perceived as more supportive of international arbitration and also bring it in line with other arbitration institutions.
- Interim relief: The Draft Bill proposes to amend section 9 to state that parties may only apply to the courts for interim relief before the commencement of arbitral proceedings, or after an award has been made but not yet enforced. Conspicuously, parties may no longer apply for interim relief from the courts during arbitral proceedings. While this may relieve the courts’ burden and avoid parallel proceedings before both the tribunal and the courts, it may also limit remedies available to the parties – for instance, where enforcement against third parties is required. The Draft Bill may need to be finetuned in this respect, for example, to provide that parties may apply to courts for interim relief in support of the ongoing arbitration where the tribunal is unable and/or has no jurisdiction to grant such relief.
- Other amendments: The Draft Bill proposes to amend section 2 to redefine arbitration to include one conducted wholly or partly by audio-video electronic means. The definition of “arbitral institution” has also been revised to refer to “a body or organisation that provides for conduct of arbitration proceedings under its aegis, by an arbitral tribunal as per its own rules of procedure or as otherwise agreed by the parties”. Various timelines have been shortened, such as requiring arbitral proceedings to be commenced within 90 days from the date of the filing of an application for interim relief (rather than from the date of passing of an order for interim relief).
Overall, the proposed revisions seek to address certain gaps and align India’s arbitration regime more closely with international practices and modern developments, such as the recognition of emergency arbitration and virtual proceedings. Other amendments introduce more ambitious changes, notably the introduction of AATs. However, some of the proposals may require further fine-tuning to avoid ambiguity and resulting litigation.
Concluding Remarks
The Consultation marks Singapore’s determination to ensure that its international arbitration framework remains modern and in line with international best practices. The points raised in the Consultation demonstrate that Singapore’s MinLaw is apprised of the latest developments and concerns in the arbitration community, and seeks to address the same. Such concerns, for example, include that post-award challenge proceedings may be becoming unduly lengthy and costly for litigants, or that unsuccessful parties in arbitrations may be bringing frivolous or unmeritorious setting aside applications.
MinLaw’s efforts in this regard are laudable. It is not alone in this goal, with the 2025 Act in the UK anticipated to come into force shortly, and India taking preparatory steps to update its regime.
This article was authored by Avinash Pradhan, Matthew Koh and Divyesh Menon. A PDF version is available here.
Avinash Pradhan
Matthew Koh
