SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Koh Swee Yen, Joel Quek, Alessa Pang and Andre Soh, WongPartnership LLP
Introduction 2025 is a significant year as it marks the 30th anni - versary of the Singapore International Arbitration Act (IAA), the cornerstone legislation governing interna - tional arbitrations in Singapore. Over the past three decades, Singapore has firmly established itself as a hub for international arbitration. In the 2025 Interna - tional Arbitration Survey conducted by White & Case and Queen Mary University of London, Singapore was ranked as one of the top five preferred seats glob - ally across all major regions (including Asia-Pacific, Europe and North America), and as the second most preferred arbitration seat overall. Indeed, Singapore courts have seen a steady rise in matters relating to the enforcement and setting-aside of investor-State arbitration awards in Singapore, emphasising Singa - pore’s role as the preferred choice for international arbitration. The arbitration-related jurisprudence of the Singa - pore judiciary continues to reflect its “pro-arbitration” stance, an example of which is the Singapore Inter - national Commercial Court’s (SICC) recent decision in Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc [2024] 6 SLR 105, where the SICC confirmed its juris - diction and willingness to grant a permanent anti-suit injunction in order to enforce and uphold the parties’ agreement to a Singapore-seated arbitration. Being “pro-arbitration”, however, does not mean that the Singapore courts are overly deferential to arbitral tri - bunals, and they are prepared to intervene to protect the integrity of the arbitral process. This includes set - ting aside awards rendered in circumstances where there has been procedural impropriety. This article dis - cusses this with reference to two cases, DJO v DJP and Others [2024] SGHC(I) 24 and DOI v DOJ and Others and Another Matter [2025] SGHC(I) 15, where the Singapore courts set aside two arbitral awards as the tribunal in those cases had substantially replicated portions of related arbitral awards. In this dynamic legal landscape, Singapore ensures that it remains an attractive forum for international arbitration by ensuring that its arbitration laws and institutional rules remain up to date. The Singapore Ministry of Law has commissioned a study on the potential reform of the IAA. The Singapore Interna -
tional Arbitration Centre (SIAC) has also introduced a new 2025 edition of its rules, aimed at improving transparency, cost-effectiveness and efficiency in the arbitral process. Notable Developments in Singapore Arbitration Jurisprudence Permanent anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) in aid of arbitration Pertamina involved a Singapore-seated arbitration relating to contracts allegedly concluded through email exchanges. The defendant claimed that no binding arbitration agreement existed and refused to participate beyond raising a jurisdictional objection. Despite the defendant’s absence, the tribunal pro - ceeded and issued an award in the claimant’s favour. Subsequently, the defendant commenced court pro - ceedings in the Philippines, which included claims that the award was void, and sought both permanent and temporary injunctions to prevent enforcement thereof (the “Philippines Action”). Following the Philippines Action, the claimant applied to the Singapore courts for, among other things, a per - manent ASI to restrain the defendant from pursuing any proceedings, whether in the Philippines or else - where in relation to the setting-aside or challenging of the award. The SICC confirmed that it had jurisdiction to grant a permanent ASI, rejecting the defendant’s argument that such relief could not be granted under the SICC Rules. It clarified (at [64] of Pertamina ) that “there is a difference between the basis for the SICC’s jurisdic - tion to deal with a matter, and the court’s powers to grant relief once the court’s jurisdiction to deal with the matter is established”. Since the SICC has juris - diction to deal with the matter (which relates to arbitra - tion proceedings under the IAA), “the SICC is thereby clothed with all the powers of the [General Division of the High Court (GDHC)] to grant appropriate relief including a permanent ASI in aid of the arbitration pro - ceedings”. The SICC held that, since Singapore was both the seat of arbitration and the substantive law of the contract, Singapore law governed the arbitration agreement.
729 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook