Construction Disputes and ADR: AIAC concludes Asia ADR Week 2025

The Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) successfully hosted the last day of the Asia ADR Week 2025, a five-day international conference on the theme, “Kairos: Seizing the ADR Moment”, encapsulating the urgency and opportunity in transforming the future of dispute resolution.

Session 1| Insolvency vs ADR? The Interface of the Two in Construction Disputes

The intersection of insolvency and ADR regimes often raises fundamental questions of compatibility. While the ADR regime was designed to provide swift resolutions for cash flow disputes, insolvency law focuses on equitable distribution of assets and protection of creditor interests. This session provided an in-depth analysis of the legal standing of insolvent parties in ADR proceedings, as well as the crucial role of adjudicators and/or arbitrators in safeguarding procedural fairness. The speakers also discussed the key issues and challenges in the interface of these two regimes and explored the practical approaches as well as strategies in navigating these challenges.

Moderated by YA Tuan Suhendran Sockanathan @ Saheran Abdullah, Judicial Commissioner, the esteemed panellists comprised of Ms. Christine Lay, Partner, Abang & Co; Ms. Heidi Chui, Partner, Stevenson, Wong & Co.; Mr. Kee Meng Fai, Partner, Belden; and Ms. Tam Swee Im, Chartered Arbitrator, 39 Essex Chambers.

The session began with a brief introduction to the topic by YA Tuan Suhendran Sockanathan, @Saheran Abdullah. He spoke about the difference between the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act, 2012 (‘CIPAA’), and the arbitration regime, which had a limited scope of just the parties, versus the insolvency regime, which had a wide scope of all stakeholders. This difference, he opined, was why the arbitration regime could not trump the policy of the winding-up regime. In this regard, he discussed the landmark decisions in Sian Participation Corp (In Liquidation) v Halimeda International Ltd¹ (“Sian”) and Salford Estates (No 2) Ltd v Altomart Ltd (No 2)² (“Salford”).

Providing Hong Kong’s position on the matter, Ms. Heidi Chui stated that in Hong Kong was bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Guy Kwok Hung Lam³ (“Re Guy Lam”), Re Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited⁴(“Re Simplicity”), and Re Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Ltd⁵, applied. These cases were decided before Sian and thus, as of now, the position was that of the Court of Final Appeal in Re Guy Lam.

She explained that in Hong Kong, in case there is an unwinding petition, which is subject to an arbitration agreement, unless there is abuse and if there’s a genuine attempt to take steps to pursue arbitration, the chances are the winding-up proceedings will be stayed.

Taking the floor from Ms. Chui, YA Sockanathan brought the focus of the panel to Section 10 of the Malaysian Arbitration Act, 2005 (‘the Act’), which provides that a Court shall stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. He posed a question to Ms. Christine Lay on the extent of the mandatory stay under Section 10 of the Act and how that affects winding-up proceedings.

Ms. Lay responded negatively. She stated that the determination of a winding-up proceeding did not fall within the ambit of Section 10. In this regard, she referred to the landmark decision in Swiss Re wherein it was held that when determining a winding up petition, the Company Court is determining whether the debtor is insolvent. This is to put into effect the collective and cooperative system, which will become the basis for an orderly distribution of assets to creditors based on a pari passu principle. She also referred to the decision in Sian in this regard, wherein the Privy Council held that a creditor’s winding-up petition does not, in fact, trigger the mandatory stay provision under Section 10.

She opined that the crucial point of the rationale was that the petition neither seeks to resolve nor determine the petitioner’s claim. Therefore, the effect is the existence of a debt underpinning a particular petition, or the liability of the debtor’s company does not come into question. It does not fall for determination in a winding-up proceeding. She concluded that, in short, in a case where the company is irreversibly insolvent, it follows that insolvency considerations must take precedence. Where a debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds, and the signs of insolvency are absent or faint, then arbitration would likely take precedence.

“A balance needs to be met between the demands of the arbitration regime vis-a-vis the insolvency regime.”

-Ms. Christine Lay

Thanking Ms. Lay for the illuminating answer, YA Sockanathan furthered the discussion by inviting Mr. Kee Meng Fai to speak about indisputable CIPAA awards and their interaction with winding-up petitions.

In his response, Mr. Fai discussed two landmark decisions in Bludream City Development Sdn Bhd (“Bludream”) v Pembinaan Bina Bumi Sdn Bhd (“PBB”)⁶ and Consortium Express v. Ambition. He also referred to Section 16 of the CIPAA and Section 465 of the Companies Act.

He explained that in balancing the adjudication decision with temporary binding versus the risk of having a petition that may have a detrimental effect on the company, Section 16 and Section 465 were avenues for companies to make a decision that takes away the general risk. From a practical perspective of the possibility of people abusing the process by immediately seeking winding up, he explained that the best approach would be that the unpaid party who takes this sort of measure must also bear in mind that if he successfully obtains a winding up order, then he would have to join the rest of the creditors.

Regarding the indisputability of CIPAA awards, Mr. Fai opined that this was perhaps necessary to meet the needs of CIPAA.

Coming to the last speaker, YA Sockanathan opened the floor for Ms. Tam Swee Im to speak about how an arbitrator would deal with the aforesaid competing arguments and how it would impact the arbitration process.

At the outset, Ms. Im responded that Courts and Tribunals were immensely impacted by such contradictory arguments because once there is an insolvency situation, often the arbitration proceedings are halted in some way, shape, or form. This was particularly difficult when the arbitration was already started or well underway, particularly if it was at the tail end. She stated that this was a heavily disputed issue as parties argued whether they should continue with the arbitration and finish it or not.

Ms. Im added that this was a concerning situation, especially for Malaysia, as any order for liquidation would be effectively backdated to the day of the petition. So, whatever has happened in the interim could be rendered void. On the other end of the scale, there could also be a situation where the enforcement of any award could be considered as undue preference, especially in the case of construction contracts where there are unsecured debts.

Citing personal experiences of cases, she highlighted the practical situation faced by parties and how the international developments had made a significant impact on Malaysia.

Session 2| Trick or Treat: The Role of Experts and Consultants in the Construction Proceedings

Experts and consultants play a vital role in construction proceedings by offering specialised insights that assist tribunals or courts in understanding and tackling complex technical issues. Imperatively, experts and consultants’ paramount duty is owed to the tribunals or courts and not to the parties, making independence and objectivity essential. Nevertheless, expert evidence is not without controversy. There are instances where experts and consultants are regarded as a hindrance, such that their opinions are perceived as biased, overly complex, or inconsistent. This session delved into the core duties and common standards that are expected from experts and consultants, as well as the risks and implications of breaching those obligations. Additionally, the speakers examined the practical considerations around the concepts of multi-hatting and hot-tubbing, and how these practices influence the assessment and effectiveness of expert testimony.

Moderated by YA Dato’ Nadzarin bin Wok Nordin, Judge, Court of Appeal, the erudite panel comprised of Mr. Belden Premaraj, Founding Partner, Belden; Ms. Nereen Kaur, Partner, Atma Singh Veriah & Co; Mr. Ratan Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate, Chambers of Ratan K. Singh, India; and Mr. Trevor Lam, Chairman, Society of Construction Law, Singapore.

Kickstarting the discussion, YA Dato’ Nadzarin bin Wok Nordin introduced the panellists and laid down the structure of the session. Thereafter, he asked Ms. Nereen Kaur to provide insights on the appointment of experts and/or consultants in her jurisdiction and the standards for their appointment, if any.

Speaking from the perspective of Malaysia, Ms. Kaur stated that for the appointment of experts or consultants, one would have to refer to the laws of the appointing authority. For instance, if it were the AIAC and an expert appointment by the Tribunal, one would refer to Article 29 of the AIAC Rules, which provides that the arbitral Tribunal will set out the terms of reference for the expert at the outset, and a copy of those terms of reference is shared with the parties for their comments. Thereafter, a candidate is proposed, and a statement of independence and impartiality is shared along with their qualifications. The parties and counsels can challenge the expert both on his independence as well as on his qualifications, and if he makes it past that stage, then the expert would be prepared to be appointed by the Tribunal. Then, the expert would prepare a report which would be sent to the parties and their experts to comment on it and to test the limits and the data provided.

She further explained that in the case of a party-appointed expert, the rules would not be very useful, as the party would decide them. In this case, the counsel will prepare a term of reference for a potential expert, the expert would be informed of what was required from them, and then the names of experts would be suggested.

Kickstarting the discussion, YA Dato’ Nadzarin bin Wok Nordin introduced the panellists and laid down the structure of the session. Thereafter, he asked Ms. Nereen Kaur to provide insights on the appointment of experts and/or consultants in her jurisdiction and the standards for their appointment, if any.

Speaking from the perspective of Malaysia, Ms. Kaur stated that for the appointment of experts or consultants, one would have to refer to the laws of the appointing authority. For instance, if it were the AIAC and an expert appointment by the Tribunal, one would refer to Article 29 of the AIAC Rules, which provides that the arbitral Tribunal will set out the terms of reference for the expert at the outset, and a copy of those terms of reference is shared with the parties for their comments. Thereafter, a candidate is proposed, and a statement of independence and impartiality is shared along with their qualifications. The parties and counsels can challenge the expert both on his independence as well as on his qualifications, and if he makes it past that stage, then the expert would be prepared to be appointed by the Tribunal. Then, the expert would prepare a report which would be sent to the parties and their experts to comment on it and to test the limits and the data provided.

She further explained that in the case of a party-appointed expert, the rules would not be very useful, as the party would decide them. In this case, the counsel will prepare a term of reference for a potential expert, the expert would be informed of what was required from them, and then the names of experts would be suggested.

Aiding the conversation with his expertise in the Indian jurisdiction, Mr. Ratan Kumar Singh stated that arbitrators did not appoint the experts due to due process concerns. The Tribunal’s apprehension is that their appointed expert was their person, and they would not like the expert to be aggressively cross-examined. Mr. Sungh further informed that the Arbitration Bar of India had set up a task force under his co-chairmanship, and they were working on a protocol where both sides would be persuaded to agree on a single expert. This would eradicate the issues that arise with party-appointed experts.

From the perspective of a consultant/expert, Mr. Trevor Lam provided practical insights and drew from his experience in Australia, Singapore, and Malaysia. He stated that the usual process was that a brief would be given and a conflict-of-interest check would take place. He underscored the importance of the timing of the appointment of the expert. He preferred it to be early in the dispute rather than later because a late appointment ran the risk of parties having to provide additional evidence quite late in the proceedings, which prolonged the case. Stating this, he concluded that the process and mechanics of appointment were usually similar, but the difference was in when the expert was appointed.

Mr. Belden Premaraj furthered the discourse by expressing that in domestic or international arbitrations in Malaysia, there was no guidance provided by the act, and most institutional rules did not guide the parties on party-appointed arbitrators. He opined that parties took guidance from the Tribunal on what declarations would be needed from the expert and what the Tribunal was looking for.

Regarding the timing of appointment of the arbitrator, Mr. Premraj agreed with Mr. Lam that when experts are onboarded at a later stage, new issues could come up.

On the topic of whether all experts and consultants can be biased and what could be done, Mr. Lam stated that they could be, but the degree of bias varied, and there were a couple of factors that affected this. In Australia, he remarked that counsels spent a lot of time interrogating expert witnesses and trying to create the perception that they are not impartial or that they were biased, to influence the amount of weightage that was given to the expert opinion. Thus, experts were becoming more cognizant of this. On the other hand, no matter how impartial and unbiased an expert is in carrying out their duties as an expert, if they were party-appointed experts, there was a natural degree of bias in their analysis. He concluded that the solution was giving an honest opinion at the outset to the client, substantiating opinions with evidence, and studying the opposition evidence.

The rest of the panellists also provided their insights on the topic of bias of experts, for instance, Mr Singh reminisced on his experiences, while Mr. Premraj explored passive conscientious bias and passive unconscientious bias.

Lastly, the panel discussed the core duties of experts and consultants, such as the duty towards the Tribunal, the duty of maintaining independence, the duty of assisting the Tribunal, etc., and conducted a question-and-answer session with the audience.

Session 3| Demolishing the Old-School: Automation-Driven Transition in the Construction Industry

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation are reshaping the construction landscape — from how construction projects are planned, executed, and managed to enhancing project scheduling, resource allocations, and risk predictions. Beyond operational benefits, this session explored how AI and automation can be used to effectively resolve construction-related disputes through data-driven insights and improved project transparency. The speakers also delved into the trends, risks, and way forward for leveraging technology in alignment with the evolving expectations of the construction industry.

Moderated by Mr. Lam Wai Loon, Partner, Harold & Lam Partnership, the panel comprised of various legal luminaries namely, Ms. Chelsea Pollard, Associate, Morgan Lewis; Ar. David Cheah, Principles, DCDA Architect; Mr. John Shenton, Regional Contract Manager, Averda; and Ms. Lynnda Lim Mee Wan, Managing Director, REX C Expert.

The panel gave speeches as per their specific roles, namely, Mr. John Shenton was the construction contract manager, Ms. Lynnda Lim Mee Wan was the claim expert, Ms. Chelsea Pollard was the counsel, and Architect David Cheah was the arbitrator, to discuss how AI and automation had changed how they carried out their tasks.

Starting with Mr. Shenton, who represented AVERDA, a waste management solutions company, discussed automation-driven transformation in the business in the built environment, the natural environment, and in the space between those two, as well as how digital systems are transforming the way we manage risk, productivity, and sustainability.

He explored four interconnected layers of AVERDA’s operations:

1. Instrumented People: This layer consisted of the use of automation in Visual, Tactical, and Sensing Wearables, like AR glasses, smart vests, biometric bands, etc.

2. Instrumented Sites: This layer explored the use of AI and automation at the project sites, for example, AI Spotting (safety deviations would be flagged immediately), weekly drone flights that capture 3D images of the site, and continuous assessment of risks with the data captured to establish a new work rhythm. Mr. Shenton referred to a recent project of his in India wherein AVERDA was working with a municipal body to transform legacy dumps into engineered landfills and ultimately into a waste-to-energy facility.

3. Instrumented Fleet/Machines: This layer consisted of automation in the machines, such as trucks and loaders, which now had telematics, sensors, and AI vision. It made the machines learn, optimize routes, predict maintenance, and reduce emissions. It also reduced timelines and minimized disruptions.

4. Instrumented Terrain: This layer consisted of automation in the terrain through Lidar mapping, photogrammetry, and embedded sensors. It allowed machines to perform the dull, dirty, and dangerous tasks that previously people did, like site inspections in confined spaces, thermal scans of hazardous zones, gas detection, and progress capture on unstable terrain.

He elaborated that these four layers formed the common data environment that was the backbone of any project. It made the data a deliverable, like concrete or steel, provided early warning signs by design by predicting what could go wrong, and embedded a dispute data set protocol by capturing everything for evidential clarity. Lastly, he remarked that this changed everything for arbitrations as evidence was not only already created, but also structured, stamped, and verifiable.

The second speaker, Ms. Wan, explained how AI assisted her in the role of an expert in the following manner:

1. It could enhance communication so that experts could provide straightforward and jargon-free opinions to avoid misunderstandings with counsels and tribunals.

2. It could improve the clarity in the expert opinion and testimony by breaking down complex ideas/ opinions into digestible parts and step-by-step analysis with proper reasoning.

3. It could peer review the expert report to mitigate bias and ensure that conclusions were supported.

4. It could stimulate potential outcomes and scenarios to aid the expert in improving their assessment and presentation.

5. It could facilitate research.

From the counsel’s perspective, Ms. Pollard focused on four areas where AI could be used by counsels.

1. Research: Legal Research Engines were integrating AI into their engines. The AI tools were restricted to the legal database of the search engine and provided faster results, summaries with sources linked, sorted cases, and much more.

2. Legal Assistants: Some research engines provided AI legal assistants that could make legal analysis, compare perspectives, answer legal questions, or deal with other procedural aspects of the work.

3. Translation: AI Tools could be used for translation in cross-border disputes as well as for legal translation.

4. Document Management: Some AI tools allowed the creation of personal confidential datasets inside the tool. The uploaded documents could be used to create timelines, draft something, or help you prep for a cross-examination.

   Lastly, from the arbitrator’s perspective, Ar. Cheah began his speech by commending the revolutionary impact of AI. He delved into the CIArb Guidelines 2025 on the use of AI and laid out a list of benefits and risks:

   1. Benefits:

      • It enhanced efficiency by streamlining document management and aiding better quality virtual arbitrations.

      • It provided data analysis by identifying patterns quickly and accurately. It also spotted conflicts in evidence and arguments.

      • It provided text generation and summarization tools, which were useful for chronologies.

      • It could give predictive analysis on case outcomes to aid in adopting strategies.

      • It could provide a significantly accurate transcription of hearings.

      • It could translate languages simultaneously during the proceedings.

   2. Risks:

      • There were enforceability risks and adverse implications for arbitration in certain jurisdictions where AI tools are banned or restricted.

      • There were chances of a confidentiality breach where the stored data could be used for machine learning by the AI.

      • There were concerns about cybersecurity if there was sensitive data.

      • There were probabilities of bias in specific databases and algorithms.

      • Due to the lack of transparency in the mechanism, it was hard to know how the IA came to a certain conclusion, and there was also no human oversight.

      • AIs were prone to hallucinating their own legal arguments in cases that did not exist.

        Noting these benefits and risks, he highlighted that the CIArb Guidelines stated that:

      • AI could be used to enhance the efficiency and quality of arbitrators ‘ decision-making, but decision-making could not be delegated to it.

      • It could assist with processing information, but the Tribunal must maintain independent judgment and avoid AI, which could compromise the integrity /enforceability of the award.

      • Tribunal shall independently verify AI-generated information and ensure it does not unduly influence decision-making.

      • The Tribunal was fully responsible for the award regardless of any AI assistance.

      • The Tribunal was encouraged to consult parties before using AI and provide parties with the opportunity to comment. If the parties did not agree, then the AI tool should not be used.

Underscoring the impact of the advent of AI on Arbitrators, he concluded by stating that arbitrators must understand AI, embrace digital tools, enhance their expertise in tech-driven evidence, and use AI for reviewing biases, errors, or inconsistencies in the award.

Lastly, the panellists participated in a short question-and-answer session among themselves and with the audience.

Session 4| The Malaysian Big Dig: A Fireside Chat on the SMART Tunnel Dispute

The SMART Tunnel stands as one of Malaysia’s largest construction undertakings, which was envisioned for flood and traffic management in the heart of Kuala Lumpur. Yet, behind this engineering marvel lies a complex construction-related legal dispute that unfolded in the Malaysian courts, ultimately becoming a landmark case in Malaysia’s construction law landscape. This fireside chat offered an in-depth discussion on the SMART Tunnel case, examining the legal and technical issues/challenges that arose during the development and operational phases of the project. More than just a retrospective look at a landmark case, this session aimed to foster a forward-looking discourse on the key takeaways, best practices and lessons learnt.

Moderated by Mr. Foo Joon Liang, Partner, Gan partnership, the panel comprised of various legal luminaries namely, Dato’ Mary Lim Thiam Suan Director, AIAC, YA Dato’ Lim Chong Fong Judge, Court of Appeal, Mr. Rajendra Navaratnam Partner, Azman Davidson & Co., Mr. Yatiswara Ramachandran Managing Partner, Yatiswara, Ng & Chan

Mr. Foo Joon Liang opened the session by setting the stage for what would be an enlightening discussion among key figures who were directly involved in the SMART Tunnel dispute. He emphasised that while the project was an engineering triumph, the dispute surrounding it offered important insights into risk allocation under the FIDIC Red Book, expert evidence, and the evolving role of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in Malaysia.

Mr. Yatiswara Ramachandran, who represented one of the parties in the dispute, provided a compelling technical and legal breakdown of the case. He began by noting the complexity of the SMART Tunnel, calling it more intricate than the Channel Tunnel due to Kuala Lumpur’s challenging geology.

He explained how the underlying issue stemmed from ground risk allocation under the FIDIC Red Book. Under the contract, the employer was responsible for disclosing all material geotechnical information. However, midway through tunneling, a massive ground collapse revealed previously undisclosed mining maps, documents that should have been disclosed before construction began.

The failure to disclose these historical mining records, according to Mr. Yatiswara, constituted a fundamental breach. The contractor was suddenly faced with tunneling through disturbed and unstable ground conditions without warning, a scenario that drastically increased project risk and operational uncertainty.

He elaborated on how the situation worsened with the appearance of sinkholes and unstable ground. This led to disputes on who bore the responsibility and the adequacy of the information shared before the work began. The case, he argued, highlighted the importance of transparent data sharing, especially in large-scale infrastructure projects dealing with unpredictable subsoil conditions.

Following Mr. Yatiswara’s detailed account of the technical and contractual intricacies of the SMART Tunnel dispute, the discussion turned to YA Dato’ Lim Chong Fong bringing a unique dual perspective, first as counsel and now as a member of the judiciary, he provided a compelling account of the SMART Tunnel dispute’s evolution through the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) and arbitration process, tracing it back to its earliest stages nearly two decades ago.

Before his elevation to the bench, Dato’ Lim served as co-counsel in the matter alongside Mr.Yatiswara Ramachandran. He reflected on the early strategic decisions, particularly the invocation of the DAB under the FIDIC Red Book, which governed the contractual framework.

He explained that as per the contract, disputes were first referred to the DAB, which in this case comprised a highly experienced adjudicator, Mr. Terry Hing from Singapore, formerly of the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC). The proceedings before the DAB were conducted primarily on a documents-only basis, streamlining the process while maintaining procedural rigour.

He noted that while the DAB mechanism is intended to provide interim binding resolution and promote project continuity, its practical enforceability remains limited in the absence of statutory support or mutual party acceptance.

Looking ahead, he raised a critical point on the increasing use of Expert Determination clauses in construction contracts. While such clauses may help resolve technical disputes efficiently, their enforceability remains uncertain if one party refuses to accept the outcome. Dato’ Lim stressed the importance of careful consideration in drafting ADR clauses, balancing efficiency with enforceability.

He also talked about the chess clock procedure that was implemented for that arbitration.

Continuing the conversation, Mr. Rajendra Navaratnam shared valuable insights from his experience in the SMART Tunnel Dispute.

He drew attention to a significant procedural feature used during the arbitration: the “chess clock” approach. Describing it as an innovative method at the time, Mr. Navaratnam acknowledged that while its intent was to promote efficiency and cost-effectiveness, it placed immense pressure on counsel. He likened it to sitting for an examination with fixed time slots forcing lawyers to be laser-focused, often at the expense of flexibility in cross-examination or arguments.

Reflecting on this, he highlighted a “softer” and more balanced alternative that has since gained traction: witness timetabling. Unlike the rigid chess clock method, witness timetabling allows opposing counsel to collaboratively plan and allocate time for examination of witnesses, typically ahead of the hearing. Though not binding, this method promotes cooperation and realism in proceedings, allowing counsel to stick to a schedule without feeling constrained, while still meeting the tribunal’s efficiency objectives.

This evolution in practice, Mr. Navaratnam observed, marks a meaningful shift towards procedural fairness and practical time management in modern arbitration.

The final panelist, Dato’ Mary Lim Thiam Suan brought a uniquely personal and judicial perspective to the fireside chat. Drawing from her rare experience both on the bench and now as a sitting arbitrator, she reflected on how high-stakes construction disputes, such as the SMART Tunnel case.

Addressing the topic of chess clock procedure, Dr. Lim affirmed with good humour, “Oh, I definitely would impose it — because they imposed it on me.” She recounted her time presiding over the SMART Tunnel dispute as a judge with only nine months to manage an avalanche of complex filings, interim awards that ran up to 400 pages each, and multiple parties represented by teams of senior counsel. She noted how, despite having multiple lawyers and arbitrators involved, all decisions ultimately landed on her desk alone.

As the session ended, it became clear that the SMART Tunnel dispute was more than just a high-stakes legal battle. It was a case study in the intersection of engineering ambition, contractual precision, and dispute resolution strategy. Each speaker offered a unique lens into the legal, technical, and procedural complexities that shaped the outcome. From the evolving role of the Dispute Adjudication Board and challenges in enforcing DAB decisions, to the human realities of working under chess clock pressure, the panel left the audience with deep insights and practical lessons. Above all, this fireside chat underscored the importance of collaboration, preparation, and adaptability in construction law, especially in projects where the physical scale is matched only by the legal complexity. A fitting finale to a powerful session, and indeed, to the conference itself.

Closing Remarks by Mr. Danish

As Construction Day at AIAC Asia ADR Week 2025 drew to a close, Mr. Danish delivered the closing remarks, expressing gratitude to all participants, organizers, and stakeholders involved in making the event a success.

He reflected on the significance of this seventh edition of Asia ADR Week, highlighting its expanded reach beyond the Klang Valley to include regions such as Sabah, Sarawak, Johor, Penang, and Pahang. This geographic diversification was facilitated through collaborations with local bars, institutions, and stakeholders, marking an important milestone in promoting ADR dialogue across Malaysia.

A key highlight discussed was the forthcoming launch of the AIAC Suite of Rules, set to take effect on January 1, 2026. The new rules represent a comprehensive and carefully crafted framework developed in consultation with diverse stakeholders and experts. They align with national legislation and introduce important reforms such as revised adjudicator fees designed to sustain the profession without placing undue burden on the industry.

Concluding his remarks, Mr. Danish underscored that the achievements of Asia ADR Week 2025 and AIAC’s reforms represent a strong foundation for continued growth and excellence in ADR. He expressed optimism for the future and reaffirmed AIAC’s commitment to advancing the ADR landscape in the region.