SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Koh Swee Yen, Joel Quek, Alessa Pang and Andre Soh, WongPartnership LLP
undervalued Samsung, causing damage to Mason in breach of the FTA. Among other things, ROK sought to set aside the award on the following grounds: • the acts impugned by Mason did not constitute “measures adopted or maintained” by ROK (the “Measures Objection”) in the context of the FTA; and • the acts impugned by Mason were not measures “relating to” Mason or their investment (the “Relat - ing To Objection”). The SICC held that, on a proper construction of the FTA in accordance with the principles of the VCLT, the Measures Objection and the Relating To Objec - tion were not jurisdictional in nature. Accordingly, the SICC considered that its role was not to make find - ings of fact de novo to determine whether there were “measures adopted or maintained” by ROK “relating to” Mason or their investment. However, it did have to consider whether the facts as alleged by Mason could properly be characterised as such measures so as to establish a claim under the FTA. Notably, the SICC’s position was aligned with that of the English High Court in Elliott Associates LP v Republic of Korea [2024] EWHC 2037, which has since been overturned by the English Court of Appeal in Elliott Associates LP v Republic of Korea [2025] EWCA 905. These English cases involved the ROK’s application to set aside an award that had been issued in arbitration proceed - ings arising from the same FTA and relating to the same factual situation. The English Court of Appeal, in departing from the position of the English High Court (and the SICC), held that the requirements of “scope and coverage” in Article 11.1 (1) of the FTA, includ - ing in relation to “measures adopted or maintained by a Party”, applied as jurisdictional conditions to the State’s offer to arbitrate under the FTA. It was also reported by the London Stock Exchange in January 2025 that the Republic of Poland has applied to the Singapore courts to set aside an award of approximately GBP183 million arising from an arbi - tration relating to Poland’s alleged breaches of the Energy Charter Treaty. The number and complexity of investor-State arbi - tration-related matters being heard by the Singapore
courts is testament to Singapore’s judicial system, which undoubtedly has been bolstered by the SICC and its corpus of international judges hailing from diverse backgrounds. Reform of Singapore’s International Arbitration Regime As alluded to above, the fast-changing and dynamic arbitration landscape demands that the relevant rules and regulations governing it adapt and evolve to keep up with the needs and requirements of arbitration users. In January 2025, the SIAC introduced a new version of its institutional rules, aimed at improving transparency, cost-effectiveness and efficiency. On transparency, the SIAC Rules 2025 include new rules relating to third-party funding, such as the imposition of disclosure obligations. Parties are now required to disclose the existence of any third-party funding agreement, along with the identity and con - tact details of the third-party funder in the Notice of Arbitration/Response to the Notice of Arbitration. The tribunal is also empowered to make orders for the disclosure in respect of the third-party funding agree - ment, including details of the third-party funder’s inter - est in the outcome of the proceedings. On efficiency, the SIAC Rules 2025 now enhance a party’s ability to obtain urgent interim relief and conservatory measures from an emergency arbitra - tor. For example, parties may now apply for interim relief before commencing an arbitration, although the Notice of Arbitration will need to be filed within seven days. The previous version of the SIAC rules only per - mitted a party to seek interim relief from an emergency arbitrator at the same time as, or subsequent to, filing the Notice of Arbitration. The SIAC Rules 2025 also permit a party to seek interim relief from an emergency arbitrator without notice to the other party . Finally, on cost-effectiveness, the SIAC Rules 2025 introduce a new streamlined procedure for low-com - plexity, low-value disputes of less than SGD1 million. The dispute will be heard by a sole arbitrator and the final award issued within three months from the tri - bunal’s constitution, unless otherwise extended. The
732 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook