This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2024 Arbitration Year in Review, in collaboration with VYAPs, a yearly collection of articles from jurisdictions all around the globe updating you on arbitration-related developments from the previous year.
THE AUTHOR:
Sunita P. Advani, Arbitral Assistant to Mr Michael Lee of Twenty Essex
This article highlights the key developments in international arbitration in Singapore in 2024.
The 7th Edition of the SIAC Rules
The 7th edition of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) Rules came into force on 1 January 2025 (“SIAC Rules 2025”), eight years after the last edition of the rules were released. There are several key procedural amendments, as detailed below.
- Streamlined Procedure
A new “Streamlined Procedure” has been introduced in Rule 13 of the SIAC Rules 2025 for the resolution of disputes of low value and complexity. This applies where i) the parties have agreed to the application of the Streamlined Procedure prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, or ii) the amount in dispute in the arbitration does not exceed S$1,000,000 prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, unless the President of the SIAC determines upon application of a party that the Streamlined Procedure shall not apply to the arbitration.
The Streamlined Procedure, set out in Schedule 2 of the SIAC Rules 2025, requires the tribunal to issue its final award within three months of being constituted, and caps the tribunal’s fees and the SIAC’s fees at 50% of the maximum limits under the Schedule of Fees. The Streamlined Procedure thereby promotes cost-effectiveness and expeditiousness.
- Expedited Procedure
The monetary threshold for the Expedited Procedure has been increased from $6 million under the 6th edition of the SIAC Arbitration Rules (“SIAC Rules 2016”) to S$10 million under Rule 14 of the SIAC Rules 2025 as well as where “the circumstances of the case warrant” it (which is a higher standard than that stipulated in the SIAC Rules 2016 of “exceptional urgency”). Schedule 3 of the SIAC Rules details the Expedited Procedure and, in particular, now expressly provides that if any party requests for a hearing, then a hearing must be held. Under the Expedited Procedure, the tribunal must issue its final award within 6 months of its constitution, unless the Registrar extends the time for making such a final award.
- Emergency Arbitration
The SIAC Rules 2025, and in particular at Rule 12 and Schedule 3, refines the emergency arbitration process by permitting parties to apply for emergency interim or conservatory relief prior to the filing of the Notice of Arbitration, provided that the party files its Notice of Arbitration within 7 days of applying for such relief. Further, emergency arbitrators now have the power to issue protective preliminary orders on an ex parte basis, the determination of which must take place within 24h of the emergency arbitrator being appointed.
- Coordinated Arbitration Proceedings
Rule 17 of the SIAC Rules 2025 introduces provisions on coordinated proceedings. In particular, where the same Tribunal is constituted in two or more arbitrations, and a common question of law or fact arises out of or in connection with all the arbitrations, a party to the arbitrations may apply to the Tribunal for the coordination of the arbitrations. Such coordination could take the form of (a) having the arbitrations conducted concurrently or sequentially, (b) having the arbitrations heard together and any procedural aspects shall be aligned, or (c) suspending any of the arbitrations pending a determination in any of the other arbitrations. This provision would help mitigate complicated risks arising from the segmentation of disputes and increases procedural efficiency.
- Third Party Funding Disclosure
Rule 38 of the SIAC Rules 2025 introduces a new requirement for parties to disclose the existence of any third-party funding agreement and the identity and contact details of the third-party funder in its Notice of Arbitration or Response or as soon as practicable upon concluding a third-party funding agreement. The Tribunal is also empowered to order the disclosure of details of the third-party funder’s interest in the outcome of the proceedings and whether the third-party funder has committed to undertake adverse costs liability. These codify existing best practices which enhance transparency.
- Preliminary Determination
Rule 46 of the SIAC Rules 2015 expressly confers on tribunals the power to issue a preliminary determination of any issue in dispute if: (i) the parties agree that the Tribunal do so, (ii) applicant is able to demonstrate that the determination of the issue on a preliminary basis is likely to contribute to savings of time and costs, or (iii) the circumstances of the case otherwise warrant the determination of the issue on a preliminary basis.
These developments aim to better cater to the complexities of modern disputes whilst balancing the need to ensure cost efficiency as well as expeditiousness.
Singapore International Commercial Court’s First Post-Award Anti-Suit Injunction
In Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc. [2024] SGHC(I) 19 (“Pertamina v Phoenix”), the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) issued its first post-award anti-suit injunction in determining that an arbitration clause in an umbrella agreement extends to agreements in related contracts that do not contain dispute resolution provisions.
The Claimant and the Respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MoU”) for the sale of various petroleum products, which was meant to be an “umbrella agreement of multi workstream activities in each operating country”, and which contained an arbitration agreement providing for a Singapore-seated arbitration under the SIAC Rules. Thereafter, the Claimant and Respondent entered into a series of sale contracts which did not have dispute resolution provisions, and a dispute arose under these sale contracts. This dispute was eventually determined by an arbitration under the SIAC Rules. In particular, the tribunal ruled in favour of the Claimant, who then sought to enforce the arbitration award and apply for a permanent anti-suit injunction in relation to court proceedings brought by the Respondent in the Philippines to resist the enforcement of the award.
The Respondent argued before the SICC that the sale contracts were not part of the MoU and that the arbitration agreement in the MoU did not extend to cover the sale contracts, thereby rendering the arbitration award void. The SICC rejected the Respondent’s arguments and granted a permanent anti-suit injunction, which was a first for the court. In particular, the SICC found that the sale contracts “arose out of or, at least, were connected with the MoU because they came into existence pursuant to the parties’ implementation of the Projects as defined in the MoU” and therefore fell within the scope of the MoU’s arbitration agreement, which provided for any “dispute arising out of or in connection with [the MoU]” to be resolved by arbitration under the SIAC Rules.
Singapore Court Recognises Indonesian PKPU Proceedings For The First Time
In Re PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk and another matter [2024] SGHC(I) 1 (“Re PT Garuda”), the SICC granted recognition of Indonesia’s only formal restructuring process, known as the PKPU, for the first time.
In Re PT Garuda, PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk (“Garuda Indonesia”), the national airline of the Republic of Indonesia, owed debts under two lease arrangements to Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company and Greylag Goose Leasing 1446 Designated Activity Company (collectively, the “Greylag Entities”). Garuda Indonesia sought an order recognising and enforcing the restructuring plan (the “Composition Plan”) “approved by the PKPU Proceeding and homologated by the Jakarta Commercial Court on 27 June 2022 as a foreign order and to grant any appropriate relief” under Article 21(1) of the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “Third Schedule”). The Third Schedule sets out the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (30 May 1997) (“Model Law”) promulgated by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, as adopted in Singapore.
The Greylag Entities argued that the application by Garuda Indonesia should be dismissed for two reasons:
- It is premature in light of several ongoing proceedings, including various applications and appeals before the Indonesian courts which “if successful, would affect the foundation upon which the PKPU Proceeding was recognised and relief in terms of enforcement of the Composition Plan was granted”, and
- It would be contrary to the public policy of Singapore under Article 6 of the Third Schedule on the basis that the PKPU proceeding and the Composition Plan were conducted without equitable treatment of the creditors and without adequate disclosure of information.
The SICC held that first, there was no legal basis in the Third Schedule for the contention that the recognition application was filed prematurely. In particular, Article 17 of the Model Law does not require a foreign proceeding to be concluded or for all avenues of appeal and review in the foreign jurisdiction to be exhausted before the recognition application is brought. The SICC found that “[a] recognition application may be brought under the Third Schedule soon after the commencement of the foreign proceeding”.
Second, the SICC found that the “threshold for establishing the public policy exception under Article 6 of the Model Law is a high one” and for a such challenge to recognition to succeed, it must be narrow in scope and if the recognition and the grant of relief is contrary to the fundamental public policy of Singapore, which were both not satisfied in this case. In particular, the concern about the lack of equitable treatment of the creditors was merely a criticism of the Indonesian classification regime and is not a matter of public policy in Singapore. Additionally, the SICC found that there was no evidence that Garuda Indonesia’s creditors were not afforded access to information in the restructuring proceedings.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Sunita P. Advani is an arbitral assistant to Mr Michael Lee, an experienced English arbitrator member of Twenty Essex practising principally from London and Singapore. In this role, she serves as tribunal secretary in Mr Lee’s high-value and complex international commercial arbitrations administered by the leading arbitral institutions globally, such as the ICC, LCIA and SIAC. Sunita previously practiced international arbitration as a Junior Associate at a leading international law firm in Singapore, and is admitted to practice in England & Wales, New York, Singapore and Ireland. She holds an LL.B. from the University of Nottingham, and an LL.M. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Sunita is the Founder and Chair of SG VYAP (Singapore Very Young Arbitration Practitioners).
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2024 from around the world now
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
