SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Chou Sean Yu, Wendy Lin, Monica Chong Wan Yee and Frank Oh Sheng Loong, WongPartnership LLP
ment. Notably, these provisions appear to assume an arbitration with two parties, and it is not stated how this might apply to an arbitration with three or more parties. 4.3 Court Intervention The IAA and the AA do not provide any mechanism for the court to intervene in the selection of arbitrators. 4.4 Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators Under Articles 12–14 ML and Sections 14–16 AA, an arbitrator may be challenged only if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, or if they do not pos - sess qualifications agreed to by the parties (“Chal - lenge Grounds”). In the absence of an agreed challenge procedure by the parties, a party intending to challenge an arbitra - tor must, within 15 days after becoming aware of the constitution of the tribunal or after becoming aware of any Challenge Ground, send a written statement for the reasons for the challenge to the tribunal. Unless the challenged arbitrator withdraws or the other party agrees to the challenge, the tribunal shall decide on the challenge. If the challenge is unsuccessful, the challenging party may, within 30 days after having received notice of the decision, request the General Division of the High Court to decide on the challenge – such decision shall not be subject to appeal. Where an arbitrator becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform their functions or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay, their mandate termi - nates if they withdraw from office or if the other parties agree on the termination; otherwise, if a controversy remains, any party may request the courts to decide In addition to the matters set out in 4.4 Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators , under Article 12 ML and Section 14 (1) AA, when a person is approached in connection with their possible appointment as an arbi - trator, they should disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. This obligation of disclosure contin - on the termination of the mandate. 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements
ues from the time of appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings. An arbitrator’s non-disclosure of circumstances may be raised in support of a setting-aside application under Section 24 (b) IAA (eg, in DLS v DLT [2025] SGHC 61, where it was argued that there was appar - ent bias on the part of the arbitrator and, hence, a breach of natural justice). That said, if there is no apparent bias from the circumstances that were not disclosed, a failure to disclose would not in and of itself justify an inference of apparent bias ( DLS v DLT [2025] SGHC 61 at [127]). Arbitrators are also gener - ally subject to their own Bar rules, including the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (PCR), which apply to Singapore lawyers and registered for - eign lawyers in Singapore. The SIAC has issued a Code of Ethics for Arbitra - tors, which SIAC-appointed arbitrators are required to sign prior to their appointment, confirming (among various other matters) that they are, and shall remain, independent and impartial for the duration of the arbi - tration. Under Article 16 ML and Section 21 (1) AA, a tribunal has the power to rule on a party’s challenge to its own jurisdiction. The competence-competence principle applies to all arbitrations seated in Singapore. 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention Under Section 10 IAA and Section 21 (9) and 21A AA, if the tribunal rules on a plea as a preliminary question that it has jurisdiction, or on a plea at any stage of the proceedings that it has no jurisdiction, any party may, within 30 days after having received notice of that rul - ing, apply to the General Division of the High Court to decide the matter. The courts will undertake a de novo review of matters relating to the tribunal’s jurisdiction (see BNA v BNB and Another [2019] SGHC 142 at [10], which con - cerned an application under Section 10 IAA to chal - lenge the tribunal’s ruling that it had jurisdiction on the 5. Jurisdiction 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction
839 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook