A. LEGISLATION AND RULES
A.1 Legislation
International arbitration continues to be governed by the International Arbitration Act (IAA), the Arbitration Act (AA) and the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act. There have been no legislative amendments in the past year.
A.2 Institutions, rules and infrastructure
The main arbitral institution in Singapore is the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC).
The SIAC’s new 7th Edition of its Rules came into force on 1 January 2025 (“SIAC Rules 2025“). Some of the key highlights of the SIAC Rules 2025 include: (i) introduction of new procedures such as the Streamlined Procedure, Preliminary Determination, and Coordinated Proceedings; (ii) expansion of the cases eligible for the Expedited Procedure; (iii) enhancements to the Emergency Arbitrator procedure, including the possibility of protective preliminary order applications; (iv) updated appointment provisions and codification of the power of tribunals to appoint tribunal secretaries in SIAC arbitrations; (v) incorporation of SIAC Gateway, SIAC’s online case management system; (vi) specific provisions encouraging parties to consider mediation; and (vii) mechanisms to enhance and promote the overall integrity and efficiency of arbitration proceedings. The SIAC Rules 2025 can be found here.
The SIAC also released for consultation a draft of the SIAC Insolvency Arbitration Protocol (“Protocol“). The Protocol is a specially designed mechanism to provide a procedure for arbitration at SIAC for resolution of disputes arising in relation to, or in anticipation of any insolvency proceedings, or for specific use in the context of insolvency notwithstanding whether such dispute arises in anticipation of, or in relation to, any insolvency proceedings. The Protocol is intended to apply where parties have agreed to use the Protocol to resolve their disputes by arbitration in the insolvency context. The consultation period ran from 13 December 2024 to 17 January 2025.
The SIAC continued to extend its global reach, having signed memoranda of understanding with the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution,[1] the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration,[2] Ho Chi Minh City University of Law,[3] Beijing Central Business District Administrative Committee,[4] the Chinese Bar Associations of Shanghai, Jiangsu Bar Association, and Shandong,[5] China Council for the Promotion of International Trade Ningbo Committee,[6] China International Contractors Association,[7] ADGM,[8] and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.[9]
The SIAC recorded its second highest ever caseload in 2023, with 663 new cases filed. The SIAC also saw its second highest total sum in dispute of USD 11.90 billion (SGD 15.71 billion), with the highest sum in dispute for a single administered case being USD 5.48 billion (SGD 7.23 billion).[10] China, India and US remained in the top five foreign users of the SIAC.[11]
The SIAC, with its world-class facilities, and Singapore remain the preferred choice for parties to settle their disputes.
B. CASES
In the past year, there were a number of significant cases which further developed the law of arbitration in Singapore, in particular in relation to the following:
- The court’s refusal to enforce an award due to a party’s non-compliance with a court order
- The court’s exercise of its discretion to enforce tribunal-issued interim measures
- The circumstances where a Singapore court would adjourn enforcement proceedings in view of parallel foreign proceedings
- Dismissal of a setting aside application where the applicant had waived the jurisdictional objection
- Non-parties being unable to challenge a tribunal’s jurisdiction on the ground of the tribunal’s failure to consider a point not put in issue
- The circumstances where an anti-suit injunction may be granted against a non-party to the arbitration agreement
- Anti-suit injunction granted to support the enforcement of arbitration agreements in cryptocurrency disputes
In general, the Singapore courts have affirmed a commercial and practical approach to arbitration, which gives primacy to the parties’ intentions in choosing arbitration as their means of dispute resolution forum.
B.1 Court refuses enforcement of award in light of non-compliance with court order
In Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo Investment Partnership (Ltd Partnership) v. Shandong Ruyi Technology Group Co, Ltd and another [2024] SGHC 308, the General Division of the High Court (“High Court“) dismissed the enforcement action brought by the arbitral creditor, Wuhu Ruyi Xinbo Investment Partnership (“Xinbo“), after it breached an “unless order” to disclose documents relevant to the arbitration. Xinbo had obtained the award in the Beihai Court of International Arbitration (BCIA) against Shandong Ruyi Technology Group Co. Ltd (“Ruyi“) and its subsidiary (“ETS“) under a guarantee agreement. In the award, it was recorded that (despite being represented by counsel at the hearing) ETS had no objection to the evidence submitted by Xinbo, as well as the reliefs claimed by Xinbo.
ETS initially sought to set aside an order granting permission to Xinbo to enforce the award, based on, among other grounds, the award being procured by fraud as evidenced by the BCIA being allegedly a fictitious and non-existent arbitral institution. To that end, ETS applied for Xinbo’s disclosure of documents relevant to the arbitration, including communications with ETS and its lawyers. Following Xinbo’s persistent failure to comply with the disclosure order. An assistant registrar of the Singapore High Court (AR) granted ETS’s application and ordered Xinbo to disclose the relevant documents. However, after Xinbo’s persistent failure to comply with the order and its subsequent failure to comply with an unless order granted by the AR, the AR set aside the order granting leave to Xinbo to enforce the award. Xinbo appealed the AR’s decision.
On appeal, the High Court agreed with the AR’s findings. The High Court found Xinbo’s breach of the unless order was “intentional and contumelious”, and that the enforcement of the sanctions in the unless order was a proportionate response. The court further rejected Xinbo’s argument that the enforcement of the striking out sanction against an award creditor was contrary to the New York Convention and/or the Singapore courts’ pro-arbitration policy undergirded by the principle of minimal curial intervention. The court held that a party invoking the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts could not claim to stand outside its procedural rules or enjoy immunity from any part thereof, and that the New York Convention also required that an award creditor must comply with the rules of a contracting state if it chooses to invoke the jurisdiction of that contracting state to enforce a Convention Award. Further, the court found that it could not be the case that a policy of pro-enforcement requires the court to ignore “intentional and contumelious” disregard for its authority in the form of breaches of its orders, still less an unless order.
B.2 Court of Appeal upholds enforcement of tribunal-issued interim measures
In DFM v. DFL [2024] 1 SLR 1283, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court to enforce a provisional award which granted the claimant in a Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) arbitration a freezing order against the respondent’s assets for up to USD 90,826,522.
The issue on appeal was whether the respondent, having raised his objections to the tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the arbitration, had nonetheless submitted to its jurisdiction at least for the purpose of determining the claimant’s application for interim relief. The court held that where an application for interim relief involved some consideration of issues that might appear to touch on the merits of the claims, it was not necessarily inconsistent for a party to submit to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in respect of the interim relief application, while retaining its jurisdictional objection in respect of the rest of the arbitral proceedings. This was because the standard to which an applicant had to establish the relevant facts in an interim relief application was typically different to that required for the resolution of the substantive dispute. This was precisely the case here: the provisional award involved the tribunal making findings on a prima facie standard, and findings made on a prima facie basis were typically provisional in nature and subject to revision (unlike a final determination on the merits that would dispose of the substantive dispute between the parties). The court further found that on the facts, the respondent chose to contest the interim relief application on the merits, did not canvass or ventilate any arguments or submissions on the question of the tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with that application, and also did not seek to suspend the proceedings so that the tribunal could first make a determination on the issue of jurisdiction. Having taken that course, the respondent was not entitled to challenge the provisional award in enforcement proceedings by contesting the tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide the interim relief application.
B.3 High Court adjourns Singapore enforcement proceedings given parallel foreign setting aside proceedings
Under article VI of the New York Convention, where an application for setting aside has been made to a competent authority in a contracting state, the enforcement court may, if it considers it proper, adjourn the decision on the enforcement of the award. In Aastar Trading Pte Ltd v. Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 5, the High Court exercised its discretion in favor of adjourning proceedings in Singapore to enforce a Kuala Lumpur-seated award. The court took into account that the award debtor had applied to the Malaysian High Court to set aside the said award. In reaching its decision, the High Court explained that adjourning the Singapore enforcement proceedings was the most just outcome indicated by the totality of the following main considerations: (a) the evidence showed that the Malaysian setting aside application was brought by the award debtor bona fide and not as a delay tactic; (b) on a sliding scale, the award was neither manifestly valid nor manifestly invalid; (c) there was no evidence that an adjournment would render enforcement of the award more difficult; (d) the period of adjournment, and consequent delay to any enforcement of the award, did not appear unduly long; and (e) there were comity considerations weighing in favor of an adjournment.
B.4 Court of Appeal dismisses setting aside application following party’s waiver of jurisdictional objection
Parties in arbitration may sometimes seek to raise objections to the tribunal’s jurisdiction after the award has been issued, in circumstances where they could have done so pre-award. In Reliance Infrastructure Ltd v. Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd [2024] SGCA(I) 10, the Court of Appeal held that such hedging was impermissible. In that case, the award debtor had applied to the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) to set aside the award on the basis that a guarantee agreement containing the arbitration agreement had been entered into by way of a forged signature. The SICC rejected the application to set aside, on the basis that the award debtor could have raised, but expressly disclaimed reliance on, an objection to the tribunal’s jurisdiction on the basis that the signature to the guarantee was forged.
On appeal, the award debtor argued that as regards its disclaimer with respect to the alleged forgery, it did not have actual knowledge enabling it to assert the signature in the guarantee was forged. The award debtor further sought to argue that the doctrine of preclusion by waiver would not apply where the application to set aside the award rested on public policy grounds, namely that the award was affected by fraud.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the award debtor’s appeal and upheld the SICC’s decision. In the Court of Appeal’s view, it was not open to the award debtor to raise the argument that the signature was forged, especially when the award debtor had disclaimed reliance on the alleged forgery in the arbitration without reserving its rights on its position pending further investigation. The court further rejected the award debtor’s reliance on the public policy ground for setting aside the award. As the court explained, the public policy exception is not meant to enable an unsuccessful party to an arbitration to completely undermine an award on grounds that it disavowed before the tribunal, or if it raises the issue, where the tribunal, having considered the matter, rejects the contention. The court further emphasized that the award debtor’s position would also amount to the worst kind of hedging, in that it was staking a certain position before the tribunal, and then completely changing course subsequently when the award was not to its liking.
B.5 Non-party to arbitration cannot challenge tribunal’s jurisdiction based on tribunal’s failure to consider a point which was not put in issue
Where a tribunal fails to deal with a matter falling within the scope of submission to the arbitral tribunal, a party to the arbitration may challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction. This is sometimes referred to as an infra petita challenge, which is often seen as the flipside to an ultra petita challenge i.e., a challenge directed at a tribunal dealing with a matter falling outside the scope of submission to the arbitral tribunal.
Can a non-participating party to an arbitration challenge an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator had failed to consider a point which was not put in issue? In DEM v. DEL [2025] SGCA 1, the Court of Appeal held that a non-participating party could not mount such a challenge. In that case, the appellant had been notified of the respondents’ commencement of SIAC arbitration against the appellant, but did not participate in the arbitration. The tribunal proceeded to render an award in the absence of the appellant’s participation. After the award had been issued, the appellant sought to set aside the award on a number of grounds, including the tribunal’s alleged failure to consider an essential issue (“Infra Petita Ground“). On the Infra Petita Ground, the Court of Appeal held that it was simply not open to a party to raise an infra petita challenge where the party: (a) had elected not to participate in the arbitration; (b) did not file any pleadings; and (c) consequently, failed to raise the key issues especially the issue which was the subject matter of the infra petita challenge. The court explained that to allow the appellant to raise the infra petita challenge at this stage and in these circumstances would be to permit hedging of the most egregious form. Where an issue was not properly brought before the tribunal, an aggrieved party should not be allowed to complain about the tribunal’s failure to consider the same.
B.6 Anti-suit injunction against non-party to arbitration agreement may be granted if applicant can show that proceedings against non-party are vexatious or oppressive
Where a party commences court proceedings in breach of a valid arbitration agreement to which it is party to, it is well-established that the other parties to the arbitration agreement would typically be entitled to a grant of an anti-suit injunction (ASI) from the Singapore courts to restrain the other party’s breach.
However, where a party to a contract with an arbitration agreement (A) seeks an ASI against another party to the arbitration agreement (B) to restrain B’s commencement of proceedings against a non-party (C), different considerations apply. In Asiana Airlines, Inc v. Gate Gourmet Korea Co, Ltd and others [2024] 2 SLR 279, the Court of Appeal held that it would only grant an ASI to A if A could show either (a) the arbitration agreement was intended to also cover the non-party or (b) the real purpose for suing the non-party was to bypass the arbitration agreement in a manner making the court proceedings vexatious and oppressive between A and B. Similarly, to the extent that C was able to show it would be vexatious and oppressive to C to allow the court proceedings to continue against it, it too would be able, in its own right, to seek an ASI against B. In the court’s view, there was a high threshold to meet to show that the grant of the ASI would prevent vexatious or oppressive conduct, with the broader principle being that the court proceedings are vexatious or oppressive if the conduct of the ASI respondent in suing the non-party to the arbitration agreement is unconscionable, such as where the real purpose and effect of suing the non-party is to frustrate or subvert an existing obligation under an arbitration agreement.
In this case, the appellant (“Asiana“) and the respondent (“GGS“) had entered into several agreements, each containing arbitration agreements. Disputes later arose, leading to Asiana’s commencement of one set of court proceedings in Korea against GGS alone (“Korean CA Proceedings“), and another set of proceedings against GGS and two of its directors (“Korean Compensation Proceedings“). GGS and the directors succeeded in obtaining ASIs from the SICC against all the court proceedings, which led to Asiana’s appeal. On appeal, the Court of Appeal ultimately set aside the ASI which restrained Asiana from suing the directors in the Korean Compensation Proceedings. The court found that there was no basis to grant such an ASI, as GGS and the directors had not demonstrated that Asiana’s proceedings were vexatious or oppressive to each of them respectively. The court however dismissed Asiana’s appeals vis-à-vis other ASIs granted in GGS’ favor, on the basis that such court proceedings would be in breach of the arbitration agreements between Asiana and GGS.
B.7 Anti-suit injunction granted to support enforcement of arbitration agreement in cryptocurrency dispute
In recognition of parties’ agreement to arbitrate, the Singapore courts may grant anti-suit injunctions to restrain a party from commencing foreign court proceedings in breach of the arbitration agreement. In TrueCoin LLC v. Techteryx, Ltd [2024] SGHC 296, the High Court granted such an anti-suit injunction to restrain the respondent from continuing its pursuit of a court action in Hong Kong. In this case, the applicant (“TrueCoin“) was in the business of developing various digital currency products, including “stablecoins”. One such stablecoin was the TrueUSD stablecoin. In this regard, the parties had entered into agreements whereby the respondent (“Techteryx“) would purchase TrueCoin’s assets relating to its TrueUSD digital token product business. Subsequently, disputes arose regarding Techteryx’s fulfilment of its payment obligations under the agreements. TrueCoin commenced SIAC arbitration in accordance with the relevant arbitration agreements contained in the parties’ agreements. However, Techteryx commenced an action in the Hong Kong courts to assert other claims against TrueCoin arising from their agreements. Accordingly, TrueCoin applied to the Singapore courts for an anti-suit injunction to restrain Techteryx from continuing its Hong Kong court action.
Ultimately, the High Court allowed TrueCoin’s application and granted the anti-suit injunction which it sought, because the court found that Techteryx’s claims against TrueCoin in the Hong Kong action were prima facie in breach of the arbitration agreements between them.
[1] SIAC, SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution, 21 February 2024, https://siac.org.sg/siac-signs-memorandum-of-understanding-with-bahrain-chamber-for-dispute-resolution
[2] SIAC, SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration, 6 March 2024, https://siac.org.sg/siac-signs-memorandum-of-understanding-with-saudi-center-for-commercial-arbitration
[3] SIAC, SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with Ho Chi Minh City University of Law, 24 April 2024, https://siac.org.sg/siac-signs-memorandum-of-understanding-with-ho-chi-minh-city-university-of-law
[4] SIAC, SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Beijing Central Business District Administrative Committee, 5 June 2024, https://siac.org.sg/siac-signs-memorandum-of-understanding-with-the-beijing-central-business-district-administrative-committee
[5] SIAC, SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with Chinese Bar Associations of Shanghai, Jiangsu and Shandong, 12 July 2024, https://siac.org.sg/siac-signs-memorandums-of-understanding-with-chinese-bar-associations-of-shanghai-jiangsu-and-shandong
[6] SIAC, SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with China Council for the Promotion of International Trade Ningbo Committee, 23 July 2024, https://siac.org.sg/siac-signs-memorandum-of-understanding-with-china-council-for-the-promotion-of-international-trade-ningbo-committee
[7] SIAC, SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with China International Contractors Association, 29 August 2024, https://siac.org.sg/siac-signs-memorandum-of-understanding-with-china-international-contractors-association
[8] SIAC, SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with ADGM, 5 November 2024, https://siac.org.sg/siac-signs-memorandum-of-understanding-with-agdm
[9] SIAC, SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, 6 November 2024, https://siac.org.sg/siac-signs-memorandum-of-understanding-with-the-chartered-institute-of-arbitrators
[10] SIAC Annual Report 2023, https://siac.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/SIAC_AR2023.pdf
[11] SIAC Annual Report 2023, https://siac.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/SIAC_AR2023.pdf
