Shumin Lin
Director, Drew & Napier LLC, Singapore
Shumin.lin@drewnapier.com

Singapore is the second most popular arbitral seat in the world.^[2] This is in no small part thanks to the constant advancement that both the Singapore courts, and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) have pursued, led by a government that gives strong support and recognition. In his keynote address at the SIAC symposium in August 2025, the Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs, Edwin Tong SC, noted that:

‘arbitration fundamentally must exist to support global business…it must therefore remain responsive to evolving commercial needs, while steadfastly upholding its foundational values of fairness, transparency and neutrality. This means continually enhancing how disputes are resolved – making the process more efficient, reliable, fair and enforceable’.^[3]

This article offers a snapshot of useful Singapore arbitration case law over the past year, as well as the 7th edition of the SIAC’s rules (the ‘SIAC Rules 2025’).

The SIAC Rules 2025

The enhancements in the SIAC Rules 2025 were designed with fairness, efficiency and enforceability of awards in mind. Key efficiency-promoting features include the Streamlined Procedure (Rule 13, Schedule 2) and the Preliminary Determination (Rule 46). The Streamlined Procedure is designed for low-value disputes of low complexity, and requires an award to be made within three months from the date of constitution of the tribunal. In a similar vein, the new Rule 46 makes explicit the tribunal’s power to make a final and binding determination of any issue at a preliminary stage. This has the potential to give rise to great time and costs savings, such as where much of an arbitration turns on the interpretation of a particular contractual clause. Where the tribunal accepts the application for preliminary determination, it must render its decision within 90 days from the date of application.

Of practical importance to counsel is also the new procedure for obtaining interim relief without notice to the party against whom relief is sought, under Rule 12.1. A party may apply for the appointment of an Emergency Arbitrator (EA) on an ex-parte basis to seek a Preliminary Protection Order (PPO). The SIAC President has 24 hours from receipt of the application (or payment of the relevant fee, whichever is later) to appoint an EA and decide whether the EA can rule on the PPO request. The EA must then determine whether to grant the preliminary relief within 24 hours of their appointment. The SIAC Secretariat will transmit the EA’s decision on the PPO to all parties. The applicant then has 12 hours to provide a copy of the full record of the ex parte to all other parties, while certifying to the SIAC that it has done so. This preserves procedural fairness, while ensuring also substantive fairness to the applicant.

The developments in the SIAC Rules 2025 provide welcome clarity for users, and bring the SIAC in line with market-leading practices. For instance, the 2024 HKIAC Rules expressly provide that ‘[t]he emergency arbitrator shall have the power to make any preliminary or interim order the emergency arbitrator deems necessary before making the Emergency Decision referred to in paragraph 12 of this Schedule’.^[4] Given the increasing fast pace of commercial transactions, parties and arbitral centres must be equipped with the necessary tools to ensure that their disputes and rights are adequately safeguarded.

Singapore case law highlights

Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd and another and another matter [2025] SGHC(I) 3 (‘Novo Nordisk A/S’)

In Novo Nordisk A/S, the claimant made an application without notice for a worldwide Mareva injunction against the defendants in support of a New York-seated arbitration which Novo intended to commence against the defendants for fraud and breach of representation. Section 12(1)(h) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 provides the Singapore court with powers to make orders ensuring that any award which may be made in the arbitral proceedings is not rendered ineffectual by the dissipation of assets by a party.

Novo Nordisk A/S demonstrates that the Singapore court will, in cases of potential international fraud, grant a worldwide Mareva injunction even where the governing law of the arbitral seat does not permit this. In this case, Justice Jeyeretnam accepted that although the arbitral tribunal or the New York courts were unlikely to grant the injunction sought, because New York law did not permit worldwide Mareva injunctions, it was not inappropriate for the Singapore court to grant the injunction.^[5]

His Honour’s views were also bolstered by the fact that no tribunal had been constituted yet, and further, under the ICC’s Emergency Arbitrator rules, an emergency arbitrator could not hear the application without notice. This gap in protection was precisely what the IAA’s grant of powers was designed to address.

Parties can therefore rest assured that Singapore courts will not hesitate to exercise their powers to grant injunctive relief, especially where fraud is involved and matters are of the utmost urgency.

Wan Sern Metal Industries Pte Ltd v Hua Tian Engineering Pte Ltd [2025] SGCA 5 (‘Wan Sern’)

In Wan Sern, the Court of Appeal set aside part of an arbitral award where the arbitrator acted in breach of natural justice by failing to apply her mind to the parties’ cases.

There, the appellant was a sub-contractor responsible for supplying various items, while the respondent was engaged as a sub-contractor for installation works. A dispute subsequently arose between the parties, and the respondent commenced a documents-only arbitration under the SIAC rules.^[6]

The arbitrator dismissed the appellant’s claims and allowed most of the respondent’s counterclaims. Crucially, one of the respondent’s counterclaims was unpleaded, and first raised by the respondent in its written submissions. The Court of Appeal held that by considering the respondent’s unpleaded counterclaim, the arbitrator had failed to consider the entirety of the appellant’s case on this issue, leading to a breach of natural justice.^[7]

Given the importance of due process in arbitration, Wan Sern highlights the importance for a tribunal to clarify with parties whether it may decide an issue that was not pleaded. Although an unpleaded issue may be dealt with subsequently in arbitration, parties’ agreement to proceed with the documents-only arbitration would typically have been premised on the pleaded issues. This makes clarity, both from parties and the tribunal, even more critical.

Conclusion

Singapore’s rise as a leading arbitral seat reflects its commitment to fairness, efficiency and innovation. The SIAC Rules 2025 introduce streamlined procedures and robust interim relief, while recent case law reinforces judicial support for urgent measures and due process. Together, these developments strengthen Singapore’s position as a trusted hub for international arbitration.