Evolution of SIAC Arbitration Rules Since 2010 — And New Procedural Options for Business Users in the 2025 Rules

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Arbitration Rules have undergone four amendments since 2010, each responding to emerging challenges through innovative procedures in international dispute resolution. With introduction of the 2025 Rules¹, the SIAC is not merely keeping pace with the global gold standards. It endeavours to actively and ambitiously experiment efficiency-enhancing innovations that shape the future of dispute resolution.

SIAC Arbitration Rules over the last two decades

The evolution of SIAC Arbitration Rules have consistently reflected a push towards optimising efficiency of the dispute resolution process for individuals, entities and countries. Prior to 2010, the SIAC Rules of 2007² demonstrated early efforts to streamline arbitration through expedited procedures and consolidation mechanisms. However, it was the 2010 Rules³ that marked a landmark revision with the introduction of Emergency Arbitration (EA) making SIAC one of the first arbitral institutions to allow parties to seek urgent interim relief even before a tribunal was constituted.

SIAC’s early endeavours faced a setback in China in Noble Resources International Pte. Ltd. v. Shanghai Good Credit International Trade Co. Ltd.⁴, where the Shanghai Intermediate People’s Court refused the enforcement of an award on the ground that the expedited arbitration procedure was carried out before a sole arbitrator, in contravention to the arbitration agreement that provided for a three-member tribunal. SIAC carefully tweaked its Rules in 2013⁵ to expressly provide that the expedited arbitration procedure would override parties’ agreement qua number of arbitrators. While this argument remains untested in most other jurisdictions, the practice trends show a relatively smooth acceptance of EA procedures across countries both directly and indirectly.

Among other things, the 2013 Rules established the SIAC “Court of Arbitration” which became the body presiding over arbitrator appointments and overall case management. The Registrar’s powers were also expanded to adjust time-limits and review jurisdictional challenges before referral to the SIAC Court. Today, EAs present a faster and quicker avenue for interim relief before the commencement of an arbitration, and such decisions are recognised in various forms under the laws of most major jurisdictions.

The 2016 Rules⁶ introduced the procedure of early dismissal of claims, enabling tribunals to dismiss claims at an early stage. This was analogous to the summary dismissal procedures in the civil procedures of most jurisdictions. New provisions for consolidation and joinder allowed multiple claims under different contracts and multiple parties to be adjudicated and enjoined together. The appointment time for EA was also reduced. The 2016 Rules did not explicitly address third-party funding (TPF) but that did not prevent SIAC from regulating it. Following its legalisation in Singapore, Practice Note PN-01/17 (31-3-2017) by the SIAC introduced disclosure requirements and arbitrator conduct guidelines.⁷ Now, TPF is explicitly addressed in the 2025 SIAC Rules.

The latest brick in the wall: Innovations and new beginnings in 2025

The 2025 Rules mark another significant milestone for SIAC introducing a series of key developments and coinciding with the start of possibly a new era with a new Registrar after the incredibly successful 13 year-term of the previous one.⁸

Notably, the new Rules introduce ex parte Protective Preliminary Orders (PPOs) which, in certain situations, allow claimants to obtain emergency relief without prior notice to the opposing party. Another innovation is the Streamlined Procedure under Rule 13 of the 2025 SIAC Rules, which provides a faster alternative to the expedited procedure for small claims. It applies where (i) the parties agree to its application; or (ii) the amount in dispute does not exceed Singapore Dollar (SGD) 1 million, unless the SIAC President decides otherwise. The procedure mandates resolution within three months.

Coordinated proceedings enable concurrent and sequential case management, enhancing procedural efficiency. The TPF framework now mandates full disclosure of the funder’s identity and liability. Additionally, the “preliminary determination” mechanism empowers tribunals to resolve key legal issues at an early stage of the arbitration proceedings.

Each version of SIAC Arbitration Rules has refined and expanded the institution’s capabilities, but some revisions have been more transformative than others. The 2025 Rules mark one such shift, with significant changes in three key areas enhancing transparency, cost-effectiveness and procedural efficiency.

Firstly, the 2025 Rules revamp fast-track arbitration with the introduction of the Streamlined Procedure (Rule 13 and Schedule 2) and the expansion of eligibility for the Expedited Procedure (Rule 14 and Schedule 3). The Streamlined Procedure applies where parties have agreed to its application before the Tribunal is constituted or where the amount in dispute does not exceed SGD 1 million (USD 7,50,000) with a party having the option to apply for its exclusion. In our opinion, the Streamlined Procedure is a welcome addition, as the costs associated with traditional or even Expedited Procedure arbitration often deter parties from pursuing lower-value claims.

The ambitious three-month time-frame for an award (subject to extension by the Registrar) makes it one of the quickest fast-track procedures available under institutional rules globally. It is particularly suited for lower value and less complex disputes, such as straightforward debt recovery claims or those involving legal issues without the need for fact or expert evidence. The expansion of the Expedited Procedure is also a positive development. The previous requirement to show “exceptional urgency” imposed a high threshold, whereas the revised Rules now allow parties to apply based on factors such as the amount in dispute not exceeding SGD 10 million but the issues remaining relatively straightforward.

Secondly, the Rules enhance a party’s ability to seek urgent interim relief from an EA (Rule 12.1 and Schedule 1). Key changes include allowing parties to apply for interim relief before filing the notice of arbitration, provided they do so within seven days, and permitting applications without prior notice for interim relief via a PPO.

Under the new Rules, a party can seek a PPO ex parte to prevent frustration of the requested relief. The EA must decide on this within 24 hours, with the applicant required to notify all parties within 12 hours if granted. The order expires in 14 days unless modified or adopted following a hearing with all parties.

In our opinion, these provisions mark a significant shift, aligning SIAC with relatively liberal standards like the Swiss Rules, 2021⁹ in allowing ex parte relief. This may reduce reliance on courts for urgent measures, making SIAC a more comprehensive option where ex parte relief is required for strategic reasons. However, enforceability remains uncertain, as such orders may not be considered awards under the New York Convention¹⁰, and national laws vary. In Singapore, they may be enforceable with High Court’s permission, but their status elsewhere is unpredictable as of now. Moreover, Section 12-A(6) of the Singapore’s International Arbitration Act, 1994¹¹ limits court’s power to grant interim relief unless an arbitrator is unable to act effectively, potentially reducing court intervention. While this innovation is welcome, the practical impact on parties remains to be seen.

Lastly, the 2025 Rules introduce new TPF disclosure obligations (Rule 38) expanding on SIAC PN-01/17¹². Funded parties must disclose the existence, identity and contact details of their funder in the notice of arbitration, response, or as soon as practicable upon securing funding. Any changes must be promptly notified and the Tribunal may order further disclosure, including the funder’s interest and commitment to adverse costs liability. Non-compliance may lead to sanctions, damages or costs orders (as is practically understood under Singapore and English law).

Notably, the Rules prohibit entering into TPF agreements post-Tribunal’s constitution if it creates a conflict of interest. In such cases, the Tribunal may direct the funder’s withdrawal from the agreement.

In our opinion, these measures align SIAC with global best practices and the need for enhanced efficiency. The Rules prioritise the Tribunal’s integrity and award enforceability over a party’s right to funding, which may be seen as a necessary trade-off. Parties and funders must remain mindful of these restrictions when structuring funding arrangements.

Impact on existing contracts and ongoing arbitrations

In our experience, most arbitration clauses which contain a reference to SIAC employ the use of the phrase in some permutation “SIAC Arbitration Rules as amended from time to time”. Parties with contracts containing such a language shall have access to the new procedural devices introduced in the 2025 Rules. However, where contracts contain a reference to a specific set of the SIAC Arbitration Rules mentioning the year e.g. SIAC Arbitration Rules, 2016, the contracts shall continue to be governed by those specific Rules and only have access to procedures available therein.

Further, Rule 1.5 of the SIAC Rules, 2025 clearly mentions that arbitrations will be governed by them only if they are commenced after 1-1-2025. Thus, unless otherwise agreed by the parties to an arbitration, even if an arbitration was commenced on 31-12-2024, the SIAC Rules, 2025 will not apply by default. For instance, the authors of this article act as counsel for the respondent in an SIAC arbitration where the notice of arbitration was received in December 2024, prior to the new Rules coming to force and the reply to the notice of arbitration was sent to SIAC in January 2025, after the new Rules came into force. While the bulk of the procedures in such an arbitration will be conducted after 1-1-2025, simply by virtue of the procedure having commenced earlier, the said arbitration will be governed by the SIAC Arbitration Rules, 2016.

User’s practice report of SIAC

Over the past few years, we have had the privilege of representing clients in a number of SIAC cases, and those involving other rules from multiple centres in Asia. SIAC, which sits in the heart of Singapore, has rightly built a reputation of dependability. While often being an expensive procedure when compared to national courts, it is efficient support and role as a catalyst in the overall dispute resolution procedure is significant.

However, on occasions, we have found SIAC to also be an artists’ playground with much scope for innovative tactics and disruptions. The nuanced rules can often be strategically interpreted and argued in a disruptive manner. Moreover, it is limited in its capacity qua early-stage orders on deposits from a recalcitrant respondent, and enforcement often becomes a second edition of the battle that can sometimes cost as much. While SIAC branded awards often hold’s far greater subtle legitimacy in Asian countries compared to the other 50 plus arbitration institutions in the region, it is still subject to a number of challenges at the enforcement stage.

However, regional competition is intensifying, with Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) and Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) continuously refining their own procedural frameworks. AIAC has been positioning itself as a cost-effective alternative administrator and venue to SIAC. HKIAC’s strengths lie in its flexibility with ad hoc arbitration and integration with Chinese law. Further, with the introduction of the HKIAC (Hong Kong) Rules¹³ in 2025 and bespoke services concerning domain name disputes, HKIAC has been making significant strides in specific areas. CIETAC (China) remains dominant with large volumes in Mainland China, benefiting from its established enforcement network. However, most non-Chinese companies have shown obvious reluctance in accepting CIETAC Rules. KCAB (South Korea) is rapidly growing as a centre as cities like Seoul, Busan and Incheon emerge as a key commercial hubs, generating disputes particularly in construction, maritime and technology sectors.

The ultimate success of the 2025 SIAC Rules will depend on a large number of factors. There are significant procedural innovations that SIAC has experimented with. They are welcome steps as they can reduce the metaphorical lag in the system thereby enabling faster and cheaper access for businesses to preliminary resolutions pending the broader arbitration trial.

Success of awards, orders or decisions passed under these Rules also remains linked to judicial reception and enforcement across Asia, particularly in jurisdictions like China, India, and Indonesia, where enforcement of arbitral awards can still face enormous procedural hurdles. Technical objections under the New York Convention, 1958 and domestic civil procedures for enforcement may also sometime render these innovations as paper tigers.

Over the last 15 years and multiple revisions, the SIAC Arbitration Rules have become significantly technical requiring lawyers with specific expertise in Singapore jurisdiction and an advanced understanding of SIAC and international arbitration procedures and practices.