SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Koh Swee Yen, Joel Quek, Alessa Pang and Andre Soh, WongPartnership LLP
award in exchange for an alternative payment mecha - nism. The award debtor subsequently asserted that it was precluded from making the payments under the settlement deed because it was prohibited from doing so as a result of sanctions imposed by the United States government on a related party (“Sanc - tions Defence”). The award debtor claimed that the Singapore proceedings should be stayed pending determination of the Sanctions Defence by arbitration under the settlement deed. The court granted a stay under Section 6 of the IAA on conditions, requiring that arbitration be commenced promptly under expe - dited Stockholm Chamber of Commerce rules, while declining to order security. The decision illustrates the courts’ balancing of the parties’ contractual choice of arbitration against the practical realities created by sanctions. Third-party funding costs and public policy In DTH and another v DTF and others [2026] SGHC(I) 5, the SICC dismissed an application to set aside or remit a costs award in which the tribunal had declined to award the successful party its third-party funding costs, on the basis that neither the 2017 legislative amendments under the Civil Law Act 1909 legalising third-party funding, nor the parties’ agreement under Rule 37 of the SIAC Rules 2016, conferred on the tri - bunal the power to order such recovery. The appli - cants argued that the tribunal’s decision conflicted with Singapore’s public policy (specifically, of ensur - ing access to justice for impecunious parties with meritorious claims) and breached the agreed arbitral procedure under Article 34 (2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law. The court rejected both grounds. On the public policy ground, the court reaffirmed the high threshold required, namely conduct that “shocks the conscience” or is “injurious to the public good”, and held that the public policy formulated, being con - fined to a specific class of impecunious arbitration parties seeking third party funding costs recovery, could not be characterised as “public” policy. In any event, access to justice was compatible with less than full costs recovery, the interests of the opposing party
also had to be considered, and the SICC’s own costs regime expressly prohibited the recovery of third-party funding costs. On the procedure ground, the SICC held that Rule 37 of the SIAC Rules 2016 on the tribunal’s disposition of costs was substantive rather than procedural. Arti - cle 34 (2)(a)(iv) is concerned with irregularities in the procedural rules governing how an arbitration is con - ducted, such as timelines, submission requirements and notification rules, and cannot be extended to the substance or outcome of an arbitral decision. Even if the rule were procedural, the tribunal’s interpretation was not a matter for curial intervention. The decision is an interesting one in light of the enhanced third-party funding disclosure regime intro - duced by the SIAC Rules 2025, and raises questions as to whether failure to comply with these disclosure obligations may affect the recoverability of funding costs, and whether this could in turn ground a chal - lenge to the award on public policy grounds. Conclusion: Continuity, Finality and Reform The past year’s decisions reinforce the established themes of Singapore arbitration jurisprudence: respect for party autonomy, finality of awards, minimal curial intervention, and a readiness to support the arbitral process through the courts’ protective powers. At the same time, the courts have not hesitated to scrutinise jurisdiction, consent and the integrity of the process where those fundamentals are in issue. These judicial developments complement the ongo - ing institutional and legislative renewal of Singapore’s arbitration framework, including the embedding of the SIAC Rules 2025 and the Ministry of Law’s continuing review of potential IAA reform, with finality, costs and the governing law of arbitration agreements among the issues under consideration. For users of arbitra - tion, the practical position is that legitimate awards will continue to be enforced efficiently, while the courts remain willing to intervene where the process has been compromised.
857 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook