SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Koh Swee Yen, Joel Quek, Alessa Pang and Andre Soh, WongPartnership LLP
tribunal’s and SIAC administration fees are capped at 50% of the maximum permitted under the Schedule of Fees. Complementing this, the threshold for parties to request for the expedited procedure (which requires the final award to be issued within six months of the constitution of the tribunal) has been increased to SGD10 million. In the same vein, the Singapore Ministry of Law is also exploring potential reform of Singapore’s inter - national arbitration legislation, in response to some of the trends and developments that are being observed globally – for example, as follows. Given the rise in high-value, complex setting-aside applications being heard by the Singapore courts, whether to confer on the court the power to make costs orders for the arbitral proceedings following a successful setting-aside is being considered. At pre - sent, the Singapore courts have no power under the IAA to make an order in respect of the costs of the arbitral proceedings, or to vary the costs award made by the tribunal, when a party is successful in its appli - cation to set aside a tribunal’s award. Whether separate costs principles from those gener - ally applied by the GDHC and SGCA are necessary in unsuccessful setting-aside applications – to deter applicants from pursuing frivolous or unmeritorious claims, thereby obstructing the successful counter - party’s efforts to enforce the award – is also being considered. Another measure being considered is whether to introduce a leave requirement for appeals to the SGCA following an unsuccessful application to set aside an arbitral award in the GDHC. Also relevant to setting-aside/enforcement matters is whether the review of the tribunal’s jurisdiction should continue to be conducted by way of a de novo review (ie, reviewing the matter anew). The current position is that a tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction is subject to de novo review by the Singapore courts. In contrast, the new UK Arbitration Act 2025 has shifted from the long-standing position of a de novo review to only a “limited review”.
In a bid to promote efficiency and certainty so that costs are not unnecessarily wasted, whether to codify the law on what the proper governing law of an arbi - tration agreement should be is also being considered. This approach would be similar to the UK Arbitration Act 2025, which now provides that the law of the seat will govern the arbitration agreement, unless the par - ties have expressly agreed otherwise. The Singapore courts presently adopt a three-stage framework: • express choice of law; • in the absence of an express choice, the implied choice of law, which is generally the governing law of the main contract; and • if neither an express choice nor an implied choice can be discerned, it would then fall to being the law of the seat of arbitration. Whether there should be a limited right of appeal against decisions of an arbitral tribunal on questions of law is also being explored. Under the IAA, judicial review of the merits of arbitral awards is not available even if the tribunal had made a serious error of law. This may be a welcome change in further enhancing the legitimacy and quality of the arbitral process. The potential reforms generally appear to be targeted at introducing certainty and finality in the arbitral pro - cess, as this reduces the avenues that a disgruntled party has to challenge an award or the enforcement thereof. This appears to be aligned with the attitude of the Singapore courts, whose decisions lean in favour of encouraging finality and preventing unnecessary re-litigation of matters, as can be seen from the Per- tamina case and its decisions on transnational issue estoppel. It remains to be seen whether any substan - tial amendments will be made by the Singapore leg - islature through reform of the IAA, to complement the critical role played by the courts in shaping Singapore arbitration law by clarifying and developing legal prin - ciples through well-reasoned and influential decisions.
733 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook