SIAC Rules 2025: What Remains and What Changes

One of the advantages of institutional arbitration over ad-hoc arbitration is institutional rules. It assures certainty to courts and convenience to parties in arbitration proceedings. Certainty, since the courts are confident in the integrity of arbitral proceedings. Convenience, since parties are assured speedy disposal of cases, party autonomy, and equal treatment of parties by facilitating the arbitration proceedings.

However, Institutional rules must advance and adapt to contemporary needs and norms. Hence, after much deliberations, On 9th December 2024, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) unveiled new SIAC 2025 rules. As per the official press release, “The SIAC Rules 2025 were developed following extensive public consultation with SIAC’s users and stakeholders, including the SIAC Users Council, arbitration practitioners, arbitrators, business entities, in-house counsel, government representatives, academics, and students.”

These new rules have been notified from 1st January 2025. The SIAC Rules 2025 will override the previous SIAC rules of 2016. Many new aspects are included, omitted, and altered in the 2025 rules. This post will provide a comparative analysis of 2025 rules and 2016 rules. It will further explore aspects that will be replicated and become the new norms of International Arbitration.

Arbitration Proceedings under the SIAC 2025

Commencement of Arbitration

The SIAC gateway is a new service feature that allows an E-Filling of a dispute. This method of digitization of filling increases efficiency and convenience. In so far as the notice itself is concerned, it must include certain particulars such as inter-alia, a copy of an agreement, and the nature of the dispute. The particulars of the notice remain the same, except for one additional document wherein the claimants must clarify the date and mode of delivery of the Notice to the Respondent [R 6.3(c)]. The notice, historically had to include the “claim filling fee,” in Schedule 1 to SIAC. While this particular has not changed, the quantum of such a fee has reduced in matters of low-value disputes. This is beyond doubt a welcome step as it reduces barriers to entry for institutional arbitration.

Whereas, Reply of Notice has not seen any substantial modifications. The time to file a reply to notice, which was and is 14 days, has gone unchanged. But, it has been made flexible for the respondent because the 14-day period now start from the date of commencement of arbitration or date of receipt of notice, whichever is later. [R 7.1].

Constitution of Tribunal

The Constitution of the tribunal is a crucial step for the success of an arbitration and arguably the most challenging. It ought to balance simultaneously two principles, first, party autonomy, and second, the impartiality of the tribunal. At times, both of these principles may be in contrast with each other. For this reason, the SIAC 2025 rules have been comprehensive in combating this challenge. It clarifies that notwithstanding any procedure agreed upon by the parties, all appointments are subject to discretion, and review by the president of SIAC. Unlike the 2016 rules, the 2025 rules clarify parties that before such a decision, the president will consider views of the parties [R 19.4]. The 2025 rules have a separate section dedicated to disclosures that are to be made by the arbitrator(s). These disclosures must be by the newly formulated SIAC code of ethics and practice notes [R 20.1].

Tribunal Secretary

Previously, connections of the tribunal secretary to the parties and arbitrator were left unchallenged due to the absence of a procedure to challenge. However, the 2025 rules have a separate section dedicated to the selection and appointment of a tribunal secretary. For the very first time, the duties of disclosure for the arbitrator(s) also apply to the tribunal secretary [R 24.2]. and a tribunal secretary can also be challenged [R 24.4]. SIAC has made it unequivocally clear that it intends to remove any doubt about the integrity of the tribunal.

Challenge of Arbitrator(s)

The grounds and process to challenge have been liberalized under the 2025 rules. First, the grounds to challenge have increased from two to three. The new addition is “when an arbitrator becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his or her functions [R 26.1 (c)]. Besides, the remainder of the procedure remains the same, wherein SIAC will hear both parties before deciding whether to remove an arbitrator. In case of removal, the SIAC will replace the arbitrator by the procedure laid down in [R 30].

New Procedures  

Streamlined Procedure – If (i) the parties consent to its application or (ii) the amount in dispute does not exceed SGD1 million (unless the SIAC President decides that the procedure shall not apply), a new Streamlined Procedure [R13] may be used in place of the existing Expedited Procedure. Under this, only one arbitrator may be chosen, and the SIAC President will choose one if the parties are unable to agree, within three days. According to this process, the sole arbitrator has three months from the tribunal’s formation to make a final award, including a statement of the reasons for the award [Schedule 2]. The main distinction between the streamlined procedure and expedited procedure is the threshold. Claims more than SGD1 million are to be adjudicated by the expedited procedure. Another key difference is the date by which the arbitration is to be concluded. In the streamlined process, the arbitration needs to be concluded within 3 months. Whereas, in the expedited procedure, the arbitration needs to be concluded within 6 months. The streamlined process can finish the arbitration within such a period by ensuring that hearings and documentary evidence are not mandated. 

Coordinated proceedings – One of the major changes is the addition of coordinated proceedings under [R17]. The coordinated proceedings are a unique arrangement wherein 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. Such an arrangement also exists in ICSID disputes. The tribunal decides the application, and all parties in the arbitration must get a chance to be heard first. However, coordinated proceedings are only possible upon the explicit consent of all the parties involved. The parties are incentivised to opt for such a procedure as the dispute is resolved expediently and guarantees uniformity in cases with similar questions of law.

Award

The stage of making the award is the final stage of the arbitration. The 2025 rules, under Section VIII of its 7th Edition Rules (effective from 1 January 2025), provide a structured, efficient, and transparent framework for the issuance, scrutiny, and correction of arbitral awards. At various points in time, the tribunal has the authority to make partial, interim, or final awards. A majority ruling is made if there are multiple arbitrators. The award is made by the presiding arbitrator alone if a majority cannot be achieved [R 51]. The arbitrator has been given more time to draft an award. As opposed to SIAC Rules, 2016 which provided 45 days, the SIAC Rules, 2025 provides a 90 day period. This justifies SIAC intention to ensure awards are drafted with reason and justification. In addition, to harmonize with time, the 2025 rules allow for giving signatures electronically, provided that the parties have consented to it. The award needs to be rendered by the tribunal within 90 days of the final submissions made by the parties [R 53]. Within 30 days of obtaining the award, parties may request corrections for typographical, clerical, or calculating mistakes. The tribunal may potentially decide to fix these mistakes on its own. If a party requests clarification on a particular aspect of the award, it will be answered in writing and included in the award [R 54].

Conclusion

SIAC is the most prominent arbitral institution in the world, especially at the forefront in Asia. In addition, in light of the Russia-Ukraine war and sanctions, parties are choosing seats outside Europe to evade sanctions. Singapore, especially SIAC-instituted arbitrations, is gaining more popularity with even European parties. By introducing features such as the Streamlined and Expedited Procedures, early dismissal mechanisms, award scrutiny, and mandatory third-party funding disclosures, SIAC becomes an even more attractive institution to arbitrate. Hence,, the 2025 Rules reinforce SIAC’s standing as a global leader in determining the direction of international arbitration while also preserving Singapore’s position as a leading arbitration hub.

Author(s)