Singapore International Arbitration Act Under Review: Summary of Proposed Changes

Singapore is a leading choice of arbitration seat for resolving international disputes. Its International Arbitration Act (IAA), which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, was first introduced on 1 January 1995. Since then, the IAA has undergone a few rounds of amendment, most recently in 2020 (see our blogpost here), enabling Singapore to maintain its status as a leading global arbitration centre. Five years after the last review and to mark the 30^th anniversary of the IAA, the Singapore Ministry of Law (Ministry of Law) commissioned the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA) to undertake a comprehensive review of the IAA and make recommendations in eight key areas. Following the release of SIDRA’s report (the Report) in November 2024, the Ministry of Law sought feedback on these issues through a public consultation process which concluded on 2 May 2025. It is expected that the Ministry of Law will consider the feedback received in the formulation of any bill to amend the IAA.  

Key areas of reform:

• Costs following successful set aside: Currently, in common with other arbitration hubs like England and Hong Kong, the IAA does not explicitly grant courts the power to award arbitral costs where an award is successfully set aside. The Report recommends that the IAA to be amended to confer this power and to allow courts to make orders regarding costs of the arbitration proceedings.
• Separate costs principles for applications to set aside: The consultation also addresses whether costs of an unsuccessful application to set aside should be awarded on an indemnity basis by default, in order to deter dilatory tactics in enforcement of arbitral awards.  The Report does not recommend any reform in this regard – indemnity costs will continue to be awarded only in exceptional cases.
• Introduction of a leave requirement for appeals: Currently, the High Court’s decision on the setting aside of an arbitral award is appealable as of right. The Report recommends the introduction of a leave requirement, to filter out unmeritorious appeals. This, however, could prolong the arbitral process at the post-award stage.
• Time limit for setting aside applications: The consultation is seeking views on whether the current three-month time limit for filing applications to set aside(based on Article 34(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law), should be shortened or whether courts should have the discretion to extend it, particularly in cases involving fraud or corruption. The Report supports the retention of the three-month time limit and the discretion of the courts to extend it in cases of setting aside applications involving issues of fraud or corruption.
• Right of appeal on points of law: The consultation is exploring whether it is desirable to introduce a right of appeal on points of law, which would bring Singapore's arbitration framework closer to that of England and Hong Kong.
• Governing Law of the Arbitration Agreement: The IAA currently does not specify the method for determining the governing law of arbitration agreements. The Report recommends introducing a statutory default rule that, absent express provision, the law applicable to the arbitration agreement should follow the governing law of the main contract. This mirrors the current position under Singapore common law. The approach parts company with England, where recent amendments to the English Arbitration Act (EAA) will introduced a new default rule in favour of the law of the seat of arbitration (see our blogpost on the amended EAA here).
• Review of Tribunal's Jurisdiction: The consultation also seeks input on whether a court's review of a tribunal's jurisdiction should take the form of an appeal or a rehearing, and the extent to which new evidence should be admitted in such reviews. The Report recommends retaining the existing de novo standard of review by the courts.
• Summary Disposal: Finally, the Report recommends the introduction of an explicit provision in the IAA to empower arbitral tribunals to summarily dispose of matters in dispute is under consideration. This would reinforce the power of summary disposal that tribunals already have to varying degrees under most institutional rules.