Author: Urvashi Misra* Khushi Mittal*
Jurisdiction:
|
Topics:
|
As a part of the updated rules released in 2025, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) has introduced an express provision allowing parties to opt for coordinated proceedings (“2025 SIAC Rules”).
SIAC is not the first institution to expressly provide this option to parties, which is recognised by various institutions as well as the English Arbitration Act, 1996. In international arbitration, it is common to see disputes spanning across multiple contracts involving different parties and leading to initiation of separate arbitration proceedings. In such cases, having the option to pursue such proceedings in a coordinated/concurrent manner, allows parties the logistical advantage of procedurally aligning such proceedings and saving costs.
In this article, we discuss the framework for coordinated proceedings introduced in the 2025 SIAC Rules and how it fares in comparison with other arbitral institutions, underscoring some common approaches to coordination. In doing so, we also highlight some potential concerns which may arise when parties opt for the coordination of proceedings.
Framework envisaged under the 2025 SIAC Rules
Rule 17 of the 2025 SIAC Rules provides for coordinated proceedings. It allows parties to make an application for coordinated proceedings in cases 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. The Tribunal is required to decide the application for coordination, after giving all parties an opportunity to be heard and having regard to the obligations of confidentiality.
If permitted, this option allows proceedings to be conducted concurrently or sequentially or to be heard together and any procedural aspects to be aligned or any of the proceedings to be suspended pending a determination in any of the other arbitrations. However, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the various arbitral proceedings will continue to remain separate, with the tribunals issuing separate decisions, rulings, orders, and awards for each arbitration.
Codification of this option by other institutions
The London Maritime Arbitrator’s Association paved the way for codification of the option to coordinate arbitral proceedings through the LMAA Terms, 2017 (“LMAA Terms”). Article 16(b) of the LMAA Terms allowed two or more arbitral proceedings, having common questions of law or fact, to be conducted and heard concurrently. Further, arbitrators were given wide powers to reduce timelines for submissions as well as cross-disclosure of documents and evidence between proceedings in the interest of enhancing efficiency.
This was subsequently adopted by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) in the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, 2018 (“HKIAC Rules”). Article 30 of the HKIAC Rules empowers a tribunal to conduct two or more arbitrations concurrently or sequentially, or to suspend any one of them until the determination of another. However, this option is available only if (a) the same tribunal is constituted in all arbitrations, and (b) a common question of law or fact arises in all of them.
Subject to the above, the tribunal has been granted wide discretion to decide procedural timelines as well as the manner in which the proceedings are to be conducted, in consultation with the parties.[1]
Similarly, the London Centre for International Arbitration (“LCIA”), the Saudi Centre for Commercial Arbitration and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) also contain express provisions for coordination of proceedings.
Article 22(7)(iii) of the LCIA Rules, 2020 allows for such coordination if two or more arbitrations, are (a) subject to the LCIA Rules; (b) commenced under the same arbitration agreement/compatible arbitration agreement(s); (c) between the same disputing parties or arising out of the same transaction/ series of related transactions; and (d) the same arbitral tribunal is constituted for each arbitration.
The earlier 2014 edition of the LCIA Rules did not contain an express provision on coordination. Interestingly, Dr. Maxi Scherer remarks that the absence of an express provision in fact provided tribunals greater flexibility and discretion when allowing coordinated/concurrent proceedings.[2]
Article 14 of the Saudi Centre for Commercial Arbitration also allows for coordinated proceedings if the same tribunal is constituted in each arbitration, a common question of law or fact arises and such coordination assists in resolving disputes in an expeditious and cost-effective manner. Such coordination may be achieved through alignment of specific procedural aspects of the arbitrations, issuance of a single award for all arbitrations, or suspension of any of the arbitrations until after the determination in another.
As can be seen, Rule 17 of the 2025 SIAC Rules borrows from the above institutional rules and adopts a framework which has been tested for more than five years now.
In contrast however, Rule 46 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, 2022 does not prescribe any conditions for allowing coordination requests, i.e., alignment of specific procedural aspects of two or more pending arbitrations. Instead, it bestows the widest discretion to the Secretary General and the tribunal when considering such requests.
Among national statutory frameworks, the English Arbitration Act, 1996 expressly recognises the option of coordinated proceedings and allows parties to opt for concurrent proceedings on such terms as may be agreed. This can be done by agreeing to institutional rules permitting concurrent proceedings, which are deemed to be incorporated by reference.
Thus, as can be seen, the coordinated proceedings are a widely recognised option, allowing parties the flexibility to align procedural aspects of two or more arbitral proceedings, as a cost saving measure.
Potential approaches for coordination of proceedings
Even though the codification of the power to coordinate proceedings has gained traction amongst arbitral institutions relatively recently, in practice the tribunals already had implied powers to allow for such coordinated proceedings.
To achieve such coordination, several approaches have been adopted/suggested, including but not limited to the following:
- conducting proceedings/ hearings concurrently i.e., at the same time, or sequentially i.e., one after another, as seen in PCA Case No. 2016-36 and PCA Case No. 2016-37;
- appointing the same tribunal members and/or technical experts;
- conducting joint oral hearings for common questions of law or fact;
- adopting coordinated or concurrent procedural timetables and briefing schedules in order to avoid pre-judgement of issues;
- filing of common pleadings and evidence;
- cross-disclosure of documents, witness statements and evidence in all arbitrations;
- stay of any of the arbitrations pending determination of another;
- consideration of the award of the previous arbitration(s) by the subsequent tribunal, as seen in Ambiente Ufficio SpA and others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9; Ronald S Lauder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL and CME Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL.
While typically coordination is an option exercised when the same arbitral tribunal is appointed by the parties in all arbitrations, in the past such coordination has been seen even in cases where the arbitrators were different. For instance, in Lao Holdings v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/AF/16/2 and Sanum Investments Ltd. v. Lao Democratic Republic, ADHOC/17/1, the presiding arbitrators in both the proceedings were different. Regardless of this, the parties agreed to conduct them concurrently and several hearings were held together.
Thus, as evident from the above discussion, in most cases, the only real pre-requisite for conducting coordinated proceedings is party consent.
Potential concerns when opting for coordinated proceedings
Despite obvious advantages, the coordination of proceedings raises certain concerns, primary amongst them being those relating to confidentiality. This is particularly in cases where all the issues raised and/ or remedies are not identical, or there is no commonality of parties and subject-matter. In such instances, cross-disclosure of evidence and pleadings, or conduct of common hearings could lead to a breach of confidentiality, especially in proceedings involving competitors. The parties in such cases may not want to disclose confidential information.
Another potential issue which arises is the stage of coordination. If the arbitrations sought to be coordinated are at different stages, for instance, one at the stage of commencement while the other is at the stage of witness examination, parties may face procedural as well as logistical difficulty in coordinating such proceedings.
Coordination may also be challenging if the arbitral proceedings are being conducted under different institutional rules. It is on this account that none of the institutional rules provide for coordination of arbitral proceedings being administered under different rules. This in turn limits this option to only arbitral proceedings being conducted under the same institutional rules.
Another cause of concern are agreements providing for different seats and/or procedures for the appointment of arbitrators/the different composition of tribunals. While appointment related differences may be addressed through the parties’ mutual agreement, those arising due to a difference in lex arbitri may be more difficult to reconcile. This again makes coordination a limited option.
Last but not the least, in some cases, attempting such coordination may cause an overall delay in the arbitral proceedings. Such delay may be on account of finding a date convenient to the various parties as well as the tribunal members involved in the proceedings, availability of experts, etc. This in turn would force the party initiating the arbitration proceedings to wait for a longer period to enforce its legal rights.
Conclusion
As discussed above, while there has been a recent wave towards codification of an express coordinated proceedings option in different institutional rules, including SIAC, this option has been in practice for several years to promote efficiency in complex, multi-party proceedings. Arbitrators in exercise of their implied powers would allow for coordinated/concurrent proceedings in a fair and expeditious manner. However, codification of this option is a welcome change as it helps reduce uncertainty as to its procedural modalities. While coordination may lead to some difficulties, there is no doubt that it is a logistical boon for parties which can help reduce costs while still ensuring that the proceedings remain separate.
[1] Michael J. Moser and Chiann Bao, Chapter 10: Complex Arbitrations (Articles 27–30, HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules 2018), in A Guide to the HKIAC Arbitration Rules, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press 2022), 267-310.
[2] Maxi Scherer, Chapter 18: Multiple Parties, Consolidation and Joinder, in Arbitrating under the 2020 LCIA Rules: A User’s Guide, (Maxi Scherer, Lisa Richman, et al., eds., Kluwer Law International 2021), 293-314.
[4] CIArb’s Guideline on Multi-Party Arbitration, 2023; LCIA Guidance Note for Parties and Arbitrators, ¶ 264.
*Urvashi Misra is a Partner in the Dispute Resolution team of AZB & Partners, based out of the New Delhi office. She advises and represents multinational clients in domestic/cross-border disputes before various courts, including the Supreme Court of India, and in a variety of arbitral forums.
*Khushi Mittal is an Associate in the Dispute Resolution team of AZB & Partners, based out of the New Delhi office. She is interested in international arbitration, commercial laws & policy.