Practice and perspectives of the international commercial courts – the experience of the Singapore International Commercial Court

Tan Kai Liang
Allen & Gledhill, Singapore

Melissa Mak Sushan
Allen & Gledhill, Singapore

Report from the IBA Annual Litigation Forum 2025: the future of litigation

Friday 11 April 2025

Session chairs

Jacques Bouyssou Alerion, Paris; Co-Chair, IBA Litigation Committee

Preetha Pillai Skrine, Kuala Lumpur; Member, IBA Asia Pacific Regional Forum Advisory Board

Speakers

Justice Robert French Singapore International Commercial Court, Singapore

Ketan Guar Trilegal, New Delhi

Swee Yen Koh WongPartnership, Singapore; Conference Quality Officer, IBA Asia Pacific Regional Forum

Justice Andre Maniam Singapore High Court and Singapore International Commercial Court, Singapore

Eileen Wong Head of Legal, Crédit Agricole, Singapore

Professor Man Yip Singapore Management University, Singapore

Introduction

Jacques Bouyssou opened the session by highlighting the original approach that Singapore’s domestic courts have adopted towards international dispute resolution. He described the Singapore International Commercial Court’s (SICC’s) business-oriented and user-centric approach, and its key features that make the SICC attractive to the business community, such as the use of specialised judges with international background and the flexibility in proceedings tailored to the specific needs of global trade. Economic conflict and protectionism can challenge rule-based order, and the pro-business environment of Singapore offers an interesting perspective for the business community.

Preetha Pillai then introduced each of the panellists.

Features of the SICC

Justice Andre Maniam provided an overview of the features and benefits of the SICC.

International representation

Parties can choose to be represented by Singapore or foreign lawyers in offshore cases (that is, actions with no substantial connection with Singapore) and in cases involving cross-border insolvency.

Submissions on foreign law

Parties are free to make submissions on foreign law, unlike the traditional approach of leading evidence on the substance of the foreign law as a question of fact.

Flexible court procedures

The SICC features active, judge-led case management, with a set of procedures that draw inspiration from both common and civil law systems, designed to meet the practical needs of international commerce and the needs of business parties. These include a focused disclosure process and the option to apply alternative evidentiary rules. Parties can also agree on provisions for confidentiality and modify or waive appeal rights.

Commercial approach

The same court hearing the case will determine costs, with no separate taxation process. Cost awards generally reflect actual legal expenses, guided by proportionality and reasonableness. Third-party funding and conditional fee agreements are also permitted in SICC proceedings.

Foreign judges – drawing on the expertise of various jurisdictions

Justice Robert French recounted his experience granting a freezing order in New South Wales for pending proceedings in the SICC, which highlighted the need for comity between international courts. He reflected on the phenomenon of transnational litigation and its effect on the legal ecosystem, and how the SICC is able to contribute through its diverse bench.

French highlighted two significant cases that have been brought before the SICC.

Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd

This cutting-edge case involved a cryptocurrency trading platform run by algorithms. A glitch permitted trades at a price approximately 250 times the market rate for Ethereum, and the platform later unilaterally cancelled the trades. The case raised novel questions about the contractual doctrine of mistake in the context of automated systems and whether cryptocurrency satisfies the legal definition of property.

The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG

This case involved the enforcement of an arbitral award that had been set aside by a Swiss court. The SICC had to consider whether the doctrine of transnational issue estoppel applied.

Requirements of users

Swee Yen Koh shared the perspectives of the users of the SICC. She explained that she often advised clients to opt for the SICC due to its bespoke and flexible procedures, openness to international arbitration practices, compatibility with both common and civil law systems, and active judge-led case management.

Koh emphasised that the justice system exists to serve its users, and that it is crucial for stakeholders to engage with lawyers to better understand how court systems operate and how they can continue to evolve. This user-centric philosophy can be seen through several notable features of the SICC:

• Ability to disapply Singapore’s rules of evidence: The SICC allows parties to disapply traditional or outmoded evidentiary rules if they are not suitable.
• Oral interlocutory hearings: Some clients wish to be heard orally on key procedural matters, instead of parties engaging through extensive written exchanges. Oral interlocutory hearings before the SICC are possible.
• Reasoned decisions: Reasoned decisions are important not only for client understanding, but also for greater transparency.
• Confidentiality: The SICC is sensitive to the needs of commercial parties dealing with confidential information and readily addresses issues of confidentiality (eg, by permitting the redaction of documents).
• Commercial cost considerations: The SICC adopts a commercial approach towards costs and ensures that successful parties are generally able to recover their legal costs (including those of foreign counsel), provided they are proportionate and reasonable.

Trade financing dispute brought to the SICC and user experience

Eileen Wong from Crédit Agricole (CACIB) shared the bank’s experience as a party to a case heard by the SICC: Crédit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank, Singapore Branch v PPT Energy Trading Co Ltd.

The case arose from a letter of credit over a cargo of crude oil that had been issued by CACIB in favour of PPT Energy Trading Co Ltd (PPT). The letter of credit was for a fraudulent sales contract provided by Zenrock Commodities Trading Pte Ltd, which caused the cargo to be double-financed by CACIB and another bank.

The dispute centred on two key questions: (1) whether CACIB could rely on Zenrock’s fraud to refuse payment under the letter of credit; and (2) whether PPT had breached the letter of indemnity it had issued to CACIB, which required PPT to have ‘marketable title’ to the cargo.

Wong explained that CACIB, as a responsible participant in the trade finance market, felt the need to pursue the matter to test these key legal issues. It saw value in seeking judicial guidance, particularly given the limited jurisprudence on letters of indemnity. The Court ultimately ruled in CACIB’s favour, finding that PPT had breached the letter of indemnity due to its lack of ‘marketable title’ to the cargo.

Wong reflected that while clients always want to win, the value of the SICC lies beyond outcomes. She emphasised the collaborative dynamic between international legal teams and the bench, and praised the SICC’s openness towards developing legal principles to align with modern commercial realities.

Experience as a foreign lawyer before the SICC

Ketan Gaur shared his experience appearing before the SICC as Indian law counsel in a case involving a setting-aside application of an arbitral award.

Gaur praised the SICC’s efficient and flexible procedures, including immediate access to transcripts and its diverse judicial panel from the United Kingdom, Singapore and Hong Kong. Compared to traditional court systems, he noted that proceedings were concluded swiftly and tailored to the needs of the parties.

Gaur added that India contributes to nearly a third of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s caseload and that SICC judgments have been recognised by the Indian courts. He referenced a case heard by the Delhi High Court involving a default judgment by the SICC, where the Delhi High Court observed that the consent-based jurisdiction and expedited procedure of the SICC does not denude it of the status of an order of a superior court.

Modern international commercial courts

Professor Man Yip examined how the SICC compares to other modern international commercial courts, highlighting three key features common to such courts: (1) they are state-established; (2) designed for resolving international disputes; and (3) intentionally oriented towards internationalisation.

Professor Yip made three observations on modern international commercial courts.

Design of a court

The motivation behind a court’s creation shapes its institutional (eg, whether the bench includes foreign judges), procedural (eg, customised rules for international users), and jurisdictional (eg, whether the court hears cross-border cases) design. For example, the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts and the Bahrain International Commercial Court were designed to attract investors by adopting common law frameworks and judges. In contrast, the China International Commercial Court and the International Chamber of Commerce (headquartered in Paris) focus more on serving local or regional businesses and are therefore less international in orientation.

Hybridisation of litigation and arbitration

The courts sometimes operate as a hybrid of both modes of dispute resolution, reshaping traditional adjudication to enhance transparency of decision-making while challenging the traditional advantages of arbitration. The SICC exemplifies this hybrid model, offering features like confidentiality, streamlined rules on discovery and evidence, and a blend of civil and common law procedures.

Part of a global community

International commercial courts should be viewed not as competitors, but as part of a global community. Collaboration among these courts can help shape the future of international dispute resolution.

Q&A

The panel then addressed questions from the audience, offering insights into the issues of confidentiality and accountability, as well as how international arbitration compares with the adjudication offered by international commercial courts.

Confidentiality

Koh explained that confidentiality is often crucial in commercial disputes, particularly when sensitive information (eg, pricing) may be involved. Different levels of confidentiality can be applied, such as by limiting inspection of documents by the public and court reporters.

Wong added that the importance of confidentiality varies on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes, parties may choose to publicise proceedings to send a message to the market, while in other instances, such as those involving internal protocols, confidentiality may be preferred.

Accountability of judges, lawyers and parties

Koh shared that accountability is built into the system through mechanisms such as appeals against the decisions of judges and cost sanctions for parties who misuse procedures.

French observed that SICC judges are held to the same standards as those in the Singapore Supreme Court and any judicial misconduct can be reported. Maniam added that there was a code of conduct, which sets out professional standards for SICC judges.

Comparing arbitration to commercial courts

Koh emphasised that parties should view arbitration and adjudication before international commercial courts as part of a broad suite of dispute resolution options. Koh noted that arbitration does still offer the advantage of confidentiality over the existence of the proceedings, and arbitral awards may be more enforceable in certain jurisdictions. She also cautioned against using boilerplate dispute resolution clauses.

French agreed that there may still be enforcement challenges in relation to the judgments issued by the commercial courts. He acknowledged that an international court is ultimately still a public judicial institution and may not offer the same level of confidentiality as arbitration.