Introduction
In his recent keynote address at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) Symposium, Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs Mr Edwin Tong SC remarked that “for [arbitration] to remain relevant, it must therefore remain responsive to evolving commercial needs, while steadfastly upholding on its foundational values of fairness, transparency and neutrality. This means continually enhancing how disputes are resolved – making the process more efficient, reliable and enforceable”.[1]
One important driver of such evolution and enhancement is to ensure that Singapore’s arbitration legislation (i.e. the Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994 (“IAA”)) remains state-of-the-art and in keeping with international best practices. To this end, the Singapore Ministry for Law had commissioned the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (“SIDRA”) to review the IAA and make recommendations as to whether reform was required on eight key issues. SIDRA published its report on 21 November 2024 (the “SIDRA Recommendations”).
In this post, we review how the current position under Singapore law and the SIDRA Recommendations compares with other key arbitration jurisdictions (namely the UK, Hong Kong, and France) in relation to five of the eight issues. We also highlight practical implications for arbitration users should the SIDRA Recommendations be adopted.
Review of five key issues
- Power of Court to make orders on arbitration costs following successful set aside application
| Singapore | UK | Hong Kong | France |
| Current Position: The Court does not have power to award arbitration costs or to remit the issue of arbitration costs to the tribunal. SIDRA Recommendation: The IAA should be amended to empower the courts to: (i) apportion (but not vary) the arbitration costs; and (ii) exceptionally, to remit the issue of costs to the tribunal (where all parties agree and where this is in the interests of justice). | The Court does not have power to award arbitration costs. However, the Court can remit the issue of arbitration costs to the tribunal. | The Court does not have power to award arbitration costs. | The Court does not have power to award arbitration costs. |
Practical implications: Currently, where an arbitral award is set aside by the Singapore courts, the costs orders are generally also set aside to the extent that they were based on the substantive conclusions which have been set aside. If so, parties would have to bear their own costs of the arbitral proceedings (or part thereof). If the SIDRA Recommendation is adopted, the Singapore courts would be able to apportion the arbitration costs or to remit the issue to the tribunal for consideration. This will allow for costs outcomes which reflect the overall justice of the arbitration (including the fact that the award has been set aside), which parties may consider important given concerns about rising arbitration costs.
- Leave requirement for appeals against setting aside decisions
| Singapore | UK | Hong Kong | France |
| Current Position: Leave is not required to appeal a Court decision on the setting aside of an arbitral award. SIDRA Recommendation: The IAA should be amended to provide that parties must obtain leave of the appellate court to appeal a decision on the setting aside of an arbitral award. | Leave is required to appeal against a Court decision on the setting aside of an arbitral award. | Leave is required to appeal against a Court decision on the setting aside of an arbitral award. | Leave is not required to appeal a Court decision on the setting aside of an arbitral award. |
Practical implications: Currently, leave of Court is not required to appeal a decision of the Singapore High Court on an application to set aside an arbitral award. The threshold to obtain leave to appeal is a high one. Hence, if the SIDRA Recommendation is adopted, parties would generally be bound by the decision of the Singapore High Court. This would (in most cases) expedite the conclusion of challenges to the award. However, where there is in fact a meritorious appeal, the leave requirement would create an additional procedural step to be satisfied before the appeal can proceed, and would therefore have the reverse effect of prolonging the time taken to resolve the challenge.
- Opt-in right of appeal on points of law in an arbitral award
| Singapore | UK | Hong Kong | France |
| Current Position: No right of appeal on points of law in an arbitral award. SIDRA Recommendation: The IAA should be amended to provide an optional right to appeal on points of law in an arbitral award on an opt-in basis. | Optional right of appeal on points of law in an arbitral award on an opt-out basis. | Optional right of appeal on points of law in an arbitral award on an opt-in basis. | No right of appeal in an arbitral award on points of law. |
Practical implications: Currently, there is no right of appeal to the Singapore Court on points of law in an arbitral award. Arbitral awards cannot be challenged on the merits, but only on the limited procedural grounds set out in the IAA. If the SIDRA Recommendation is adopted, parties who opt-in will be able to challenge awards on the merits where they are able to satisfy the requirements for leave to appeal. This would be valuable to parties who value substantive correctness over finality and expedience in respect of their disputes.
- Default position for ascertaining the governing law of the arbitration agreement in the absence of an express choice
| Singapore | UK | Hong Kong | France |
| Current Position: IAA does not prescribe any choice of law rules. Singapore case law states that the governing law of the main contract containing the arbitration agreement is an implied choice of law for the arbitration agreement, unless there are indications to the contrary. SIDRA Recommendation: The IAA should be amended to state that the governing law of the main contract containing the arbitration agreement shall also govern the arbitration agreement. | Under the English Arbitration Act 2025, the governing law of the arbitration agreement is the law of the seat of arbitration. This is a reversal of the case law position determined by the UK Supreme Court. | Statute is silent. Case law position is that the governing law of the main contract containing the arbitration agreement is an implied choice of law for the arbitration agreement, unless there are indications to the contrary. | Statute is silent. Case law position is that the French substantive rules of international arbitration law would govern the validity of the arbitration agreement. |
Practical implications: The SIDRA Recommendation codifies the present Singapore case law position that the governing law of the main contract containing the arbitration agreement shall also govern the arbitration agreement (albeit as an express choice and not an implied choice). If the SIDRA Recommendation is adopted, parties who wish to subject the arbitration agreement to a different set of laws than the governing law of the main contract should expressly state so as it would not be possible to argue for a different implied choice under the recommended statutory framework. This should also reduce satellite litigation by parties over the law governing the arbitration agreement.
- Summary disposal of matters
| Singapore | UK | Hong Kong | France |
| Current Position: No power of summary disposal in the IAA, but most major arbitration institutional rules (including the SIAC rules) contain summary disposal provisions. SIDRA Recommendation: The IAA should be amended to provide that the arbitral tribunal has the power to summarily dispose of matters unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. | Under the English Arbitration Act 2025, tribunals may summarily dispose of matters unless parties agree otherwise. | No statutory power of summary disposal. | No statutory power of summary disposal. |
Practical implications: The SIDRA Recommendation codifies the institutional rules which allow for summary disposal as a statutory default rule. Practically speaking, as most major arbitration institution rules already allow for summary disposal, the impact would be limited to ad-hoc arbitrations or arbitrations where more exotic institutional rules are selected. In such cases, if the SIDRA Recommendation is adopted, this would provide parties and the tribunal with certainty that summary disposal powers can be exercised. It would also prevent parties from challenging the award on the basis that the tribunal did not have summary disposal powers.
Conclusion
The SIDRA Recommendations would bring Singapore’s statutory framework for arbitration in line with the UK and/or Hong Kong on issues (ii), (iii), and (v) while breaking ground on issues (i) and (iv). In our view, the SIDRA Recommendations strike a finely calibrated balance between the principles of finality, certainty, and party autonomy and would tend to enhance Singapore’s competitiveness and attractiveness in the eyes of arbitration users.
The Ministry of Law has recently concluded its public consultation on the proposed amendments to the IAA in May 2025, and will likely consider the public feedback received in conjunction with the SIDRA Recommendations as it deliberates whether to introduce an amendment Bill to the IAA in Parliament (and if so, the exact form of the amendments). It will be interesting to see the extent to which the SIDRA Recommendations are adopted by the Ministry of Law in the amendment Bill, and if there are other trends that can be discerned from the reforms ultimately proposed by the Ministry of Law.
[1] Keynote Address by Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs Mr Edwin Tong SC, at the SIAC Symposium (26 August 2025) at [64].
