Singapore

• Courts' willingness to intervene in the arbitration process
• Appeals and setting aside awards
• Consolidation
• Injunctions
• Mandatory provisions

Singapore has a twin track regime for arbitration. The International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) ("the IAA") principally governs international arbitrations while the Arbitration Act (Cap. 10) (the “AA”) principally governs non-international or domestic arbitrations. Broadly, an arbitration will be treated as “international” if one of the parties, place of arbitration, place of performance of substantial contractual obligations, or place most closely connected with the subject matter of the dispute is outside Singapore, or if the parties have agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country (Section 5(2) of the IAA, read with Article 1(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law which is implemented in Singapore at the First Schedule of the IAA (“First Schedule of the IAA”)). Part II of the IAA provides for the conduct of international commercial arbitration by a regime based on the UNCITRAL Model Law (with modifications). Part III of the IAA gives effect to the New York Convention. Parties can opt in writing for one arbitration regime or the other e.g. from the AA to the IAA, but the default regime that would apply depends on whether the arbitration is “international”.

Courts' willingness to intervene in the arbitration process

A principal difference between the IAA and the AA is the degree of curial intervention. Under the IAA, minimal curial intervention is the norm while under the AA the courts adopt a slightly more hands-on approach.

Examples of curial intervention include:

• Assisting the process: the court may assist when necessary, for example, by making an order for the preservation, interim custody or sale of any property which is or forms part of the subject-matter of the dispute (Section 12(1)(d) of the IAA read with 12A of the IAA, and Section 28(2)(g) read with Section 31(1)(a) of the AA), making an order securing the amount in dispute (Section 12(1)(g) read with 12A of the IAA, and Section 31(1)(b) of the AA), making orders for samples to be taken (Section 12(1)(e) read with Section 12A of the IAA, and Section 28(2)(f) read with Section 31(1)(a) of the AA) or requiring a witness (wherever the witness may be within Singapore) to attend a hearing (Section 13 of the IAA, and Section 30 of the AA). It should be noted that the President of the Court of Arbitration of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) is the default authority responsible for appointing arbitrators under the IAA (Section 8(2) of the IAA read with Articles 11(3) and 11(4) of the First Schedule of the IAA), and the AA (Sections 13(5) and 13(6) read with Section 13(8) of the AA).
• Removal of arbitrators: under the AA, the court may remove the arbitrators, inter alia, if they have failed or refused to properly conduct the proceedings or if they have failed to use all reasonable dispatch in conducting the proceedings or making an award and where substantial injustice has been or will be caused to that party (Section 16(1) of the AA). Under the IAA, the court may, upon the application of any party to the arbitration, remove the arbitrators if they become de jure or de facto unable to perform their functions or fail to act without undue delay (Article 14, First Schedule of the IAA).

The court also has power to revoke the authority of the arbitrator on the grounds of justifiable doubts as to impartiality or independence (Section 14(3) read with Section 15(4) of the AA and Article 12(2), read with Article 13, First Schedule of the IAA).

• Jurisdiction: Under the IAA, an arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement (Section 10(2) of the IAA read with Article 16(1), First Schedule of the IAA). Under the AA, an arbitral tribunal may similarly rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement (Section 21(1) of the AA). Parties have the right, within 30 days, to appeal to the court against a jurisdictional determination made by the arbitral tribunal, at the preliminary stage, that it has jurisdiction (Section 10(3) of the IAA read with Article 16(3), First Schedule of the IAA, and Section 21(9) of the AA). If the determination is not made at a preliminary stage, then any challenge will have to await the stage of setting aside of the award.

The right of appeal to appeal against a jurisdictional determination made by the arbitral tribunal also extends to rulings (made at any stage of the arbitral proceedings) that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction. (Section 10 of the IAA, and Section 21(9) of the AA)

• Referral to arbitration: the IAA provides for a mandatory stay of court proceedings, on application by any party, in favour of arbitration should a party, in breach of an arbitration agreement, commence a court action (Section 6(1) of the IAA). The only instance where the stay will not be granted under the IAA is when the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed (Section 6(2) of the IAA). Under the AA, the court retains some discretion in whether to stay a court action commenced despite the existence of an arbitration agreement (Sections 6(1) and 6(2) of the AA), but this discretion will generally be exercised in favour of arbitration.
• Enforcing any obligation of confidentiality: The IAA was amended in 2020 to specifically provide tribunals with the power to make orders enforcing confidentiality obligations in relation to the arbitration (Section 12(1)(j) of the IAA). The amendments also specifically provide the Singapore courts with the same power, even where Singapore is not the seat of the arbitration (Section 12A(1) read with 12A(2) and 12(1)(j) of the IAA). 

Appeals and setting aside awards

There is a limited right of appeal under the AA. A party may, subject to agreement or leave of the court, appeal against an arbitral award on a question of law (Section 49(1) of the AA). Leave will be granted by the court only if it considers that the determination of the question of law will substantially affect the rights of one or more of the parties, and the decision of the arbitral tribunal is obviously wrong or the question is one of general public importance (Section 49(5) of the AA). Certain other requirements set out in the AA must also be fulfilled (Sections 49 and 50 of the AA).

The right of appeal may be validly excluded by agreement between the parties (Section 49(2) of the AA). The court also has power to remit the award to the arbitral tribunal in whole or in part for reconsideration (Section 49(8) of the AA) and to set aside the award if any of the conditions under Section 48(1) of the AA are satisfied. These conditions include, inter alia, the arbitration agreement being invalid and inapplicable to the present dispute, the making of the award being induced or affected by fraud or corruption, a breach of the rules of natural justice occurring in connection with the making of the award by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced, or the award being contrary to public policy.

There is no right of appeal or remission under the IAA at present. However, in 2019, the Singapore Ministry of Law launched a public consultation to gather views on, amongst others, a proposal to allow parties to incorporate a right of appeal to the Singapore High Court on a question of law arising out of an award. This would not be available by default, and would only apply where parties opt-in. While other proposals arising out of the public consultation (e.g. on enforcing confidentiality obligations and on the default mode of arbitrator appointment in multi-party cases) have since been enacted, this proposal is still being evaluated by the Ministry of Law

In the case of international arbitrations held in Singapore pursuant to Part II of the IAA, an arbitral award may be set aside by the court only if the applicant succeeds in establishing specified grounds set out in the IAA. These grounds include, inter alia, the invalidity of the arbitration agreement, the incapacity of any of the parties, improper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator, the award conflicting with the public policy of Singapore or having being induced by fraud or corruption, and a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the award (Section 24 of the IAA and Article 34(2), First Schedule of the IAA). The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards may only be resisted on the specified grounds (Section 31(2) of the IAA). These grounds are largely similar to the grounds to set aside international arbitral awards made in Singapore (n/b another one of the proposals arising from the aforementioned 2019 public consultation was a proposal to allow parties to agree to waive or limit the annulment grounds under the Model Law and the IAA. This idea is another which is still being evaluated by the Ministry of Law).

Consolidation

Neither the IAA nor the AA gives the arbitral tribunal or the court any power to order consolidation of related arbitrations without the consent of all parties. Section 26(2) of the AA states that the tribunal has no power to order consolidation without consent of the parties while the IAA has no provision allowing for consolidation without consent. Section 26(1) of the AA, however, makes clear that parties may agree to consolidation or for concurrent proceedings to be held.

Injunctions

The arbitral tribunal and the court have the power to grant interim injunctions under the IAA (Sections 12(1)(i) and 12(A)(2) of the IAA).

The AA on the other hand does not expressly confer such powers on the arbitral tribunal. The parties may, however, agree that the arbitral tribunal shall have such powers (Section 28(1) of the AA). Separately, the court has the power under the AA to order interim injunctions (Section 31(1) of the AA).

The definition of “arbitral awards” includes orders or directions made by arbitral tribunals in arbitrations outside Singapore in relation to interim measures made under section 12(1)(c) to (i) of the IAA (Section 27(1) of the IAA). Such orders or directions are consequently now recognisable and enforceable under Part III of the IAA.

Mandatory provisions

In general, Singapore has a flexible arbitration regime and many of the provisions of Singapore arbitration law may be excluded by agreement of the parties.

By contrast, while there is no stated list, some of the provisions under the IAA/UNCITRAL Model Law which may not be excludable are:

• the requirement that the arbitration agreement has to be in writing (Section 2A(1) of the IAA and Article 7(2), First Schedule of the IAA). Agreements that are concluded orally or by conduct may fulfil the requirement of writing and fall within the definition of an “Arbitration Agreement”, as long as their content is recorded in any form. (Section 2(1) and section 2A(4) of the IAA);
• the requirement that the parties must be treated with equality and that each party shall be given a full opportunity to present his case (Article 18, First Schedule of the IAA);
• the requirement that parties shall be given sufficient advance notice of any hearing and be sent any materials supplied to the arbitral tribunal by the other party (Article 24, First Schedule of the IAA); and
• the provisions regarding the enforcement and setting aside of the arbitral award (Sections 19, 24, 29 and 31 of the IAA and Articles 34 to 36, First Schedule of the IAA).

Similarly, while there is no stated list, some of the provisions under the AA which may not be excludable are:

• the requirement that the arbitration agreement has to be in writing (Section 4 of the AA). Agreements that are concluded orally or by conduct may fulfil the requirement of writing and fall within the definition of an “Arbitration Agreement”, as long as their content is recorded in any form (Sections 2(1) and 4(4) of the AA)
• the court's power to remove an arbitrator for misconduct (Section 16(1)(b) of the AA);
• the court's power to set aside an award if any of the conditions under Section 48 of the AA are met. These conditions include, inter alia, the making of the award being induced or affected by fraud or corruption, a breach of the rules of natural justice occurring in connection with the making of the award by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced, or the award being contrary to public policy (Section 48 of the AA);
• the requirement that parties be given sufficient notice in advance of any hearing (Section 25(3) of the AA); and
• the provisions for enforcement of the arbitral award (Section 46 of the AA).

• Arbitrators' attitude to procedure

• Arbitrators' role in settlement

• Costs of arbitrations

• Availability of arbitrators

Arbitrators' attitude to procedure

Subject to mandatory requirements, the parties are, under Singaporean arbitration law, free to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting the proceedings (Section 15 of the IAA and Article 19(1), First Schedule of the IAA, and Section 23(1) of the AA). In that case, the arbitral tribunal is expected to follow this procedure. However, if the parties fail to agree on such a procedure, the arbitral tribunal may conduct the arbitration in such a manner as it considers appropriate (Article 19(2), First Schedule of the IAA and Section 23(2) of the AA).

The arbitral tribunal need not follow strict rules of evidence. It should be noted that Singapore arbitrators often come from a common law background.

However, in order to expedite the process and to cut costs, the parties are allowed to agree on 'documents-only' arbitration (Article 24(1), First Schedule of the IAA and Section 25 of the AA; also see Rule 39.1 of the SIAC Rules 2025).

Arbitrators' role in settlement

There is no law or practice which requires Singapore arbitrators to promote settlement. Nonetheless, the IAA and the AA allow the arbitrators to act as conciliators or mediators, if the parties so agree (Section 17 of the IAA and Section 63 of the AA). The SIAC Rules 2025 also prompts the Tribunal to consider the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures, such as mediation including under the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb Protocol (see for example SIAC Rules 32.4 and Rule 50.2).

Costs of arbitrations

If the SIAC is chosen by the parties as the appointing and administrative body, it charges case filing fees together with scaled fees for appointing arbitrators and administration fees based on the quantum of each claim or counter-claim, and the number of arbitrators: it varies from a minimum of approximately S$5,000 to a maximum of approximately S$150,000.

SIAC arbitrator fees (per arbitrator) may vary, depending on the sum in dispute, from S$5,000 to S$820,000 + 0.04% excess over S$ 1,000,000,000 (up to a maximum of S$ 2,000,000). 

For more information, see the SIAC website.

In addition to the above amounts, out of pocket and other costs and expenses will also be payable.

Availability of arbitrators

The SIAC maintains a list of accredited arbitrators which includes  numerous local and foreign arbitrators. For more information, see the SIAC website.