SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Chou Sean Yu, Wendy Lin, Monica Chong Wan Yee and Frank Oh Sheng Loong, WongPartnership LLP
the Energy Charter Treaty, thereby engaging Section 11 SIA. In another notable decision ( Hulley Enterprises Ltd and Others v The Russian Federation [2025] SGHC(I) 19), the SICC held that the principle of transnational issue estoppel applied to prevent a party from raising arguments relating to sovereign immunity in enforce - ment proceedings in Singapore which had already been addressed by the court of the seat. 12.3 Approach of the Courts The courts will generally enforce arbitration awards, unless one of the exhaustive grounds for challenge clearly exists. As indicated previously, one of the grounds for refusal of enforcement is where it would be contrary to the public policy of Singapore. The Singapore courts have indicated that the scope of the public policy ground is to be narrowly con - strued, and this ground would only operate such that enforcement would be refused in instances where the upholding of the arbitral award would “shock the con - science”, is “clearly injurious to the public good”, is “wholly offensive to the ordinary, reasonable and fully informed member of the public” or “where it violates the forum’s most basic notion of morality and justice” (see DOI v DOJ and Others and Another Matter [2025] SGHC(I) 15 at [162]). 13. Miscellaneous 13.1 Class Action or Group Arbitration Singapore’s laws do not provide any mechanism or regime for class action or group arbitration in general. 13.2 Ethical Codes In relation to counsel, the PCR imposes certain ethi - cal and professional duties on Singapore lawyers and registered foreign lawyers in Singapore. In relation to arbitrators, various institutions have pub - lished codes/guidelines, including: • the Code of Ethics for Arbitrators published by the SIAC;
• the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Code of Pro - fessional and Ethical Conduct for Members by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators; and • the Guidelines on Party-Representative Ethics by the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators. 13.3 Third-Party Funding There are rules and restrictions in place on third-party funders. These include the Civil Law Act (CLA), the Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Regulations (CLTPFR) and the PCR. Under Section 5B CLA and Reg 4 CLTPFR, con - tracts providing for third-party funding in relation to prescribed dispute resolution proceedings (which include, among others, arbitration proceedings and court proceedings connected with arbitration pro - ceedings) are not contrary to public policy or other - wise illegal, provided that the third-party funder satis - fies the following criteria: • the funder carries on the principal business of the funding of the costs of dispute resolution proceed - ings to which it is not a party; and • the funder has a paid-up share capital of not less than SGD5 million (or equivalent in foreign cur - rency), or the equivalent in managed assets. Under Rule 49A PCR, counsel must disclose the exist - ence of any third-party funding arrangement, as well as the identity and address of the funder, to the court or tribunal and all other parties in the proceedings. Where the SIAC Rules 2025 apply, under Rule 38, par - ties are obliged to: • notify the tribunal, parties and registrar of any changes to any disclosed third-party funding agreement; and • disclose details of the funder’s interest in the out - come of the proceedings and whether the funder has committed to undertake adverse costs liability, if ordered by the tribunal. 13.4 Consolidation Section 26 AA provides that, unless parties agree that arbitration proceedings are to be consolidated with other arbitration proceedings, the tribunal has no
848 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook