New Year, New Rules: Highlighting 10 Key Features of the 7th Edition of the SIAC Rules, 2025

Authors: Peter Doraisamy, FCIArb*, Pranav V. Kamnani**

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) has unveiled the 7th edition of its Arbitration Rules, which came into effect on 1 January 2025 and will apply to any arbitration commenced on or after this date, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

The SIAC Rules 2025 represent a significant milestone in the evolution of SIAC’s procedural framework and reflect its commitment to maintaining its reputation as a premier arbitration institution by introducing novel procedural frameworks aimed at improving the efficiency of arbitration proceedings. The new rules seek to enhance efficiency, fairness, transparency, and user-friendliness in arbitration by introducing novel procedures, aligning with international best practices, and addressing the evolving needs of arbitration stakeholders.

In August 2023, the SIAC published a draft of the 7^th Edition of the SIAC Rules for public consultation. The 7^th edition of the SIAC Rules adopts most of the draft rules, with some modifications, following SIAC’s consultation process, which lasted over a year.

Notably, three key deviations from the draft rules, i.e., aspects that were ultimately not included in the final version of the SIAC Rules 2025 are: (1) the presumption that parties consent to the publication of decisions and awards unless they object in writing;[1] (2) the mandate requiring the SIAC President to consider “principles of diversity and inclusion” when appointing an arbitrator;[2] and (3) a ground for challenging an arbitrator, specifically, failure of the arbitrator to act or perform their functions in accordance with the Rules or prescribed time limits.[3]

Our 10 key highlights are discussed below.

1. Streamlined Procedure: Enhanced Efficiency

The new Streamlined Procedure is a standout feature of the 2025 Rules, targeting disputes that are of low monetary value.[4] This procedure reflects SIAC’s commitment to providing cost-effective and expedited resolution options.

• Designed for disputes that involve lower stakes, this procedure minimizes procedural formalities and costs while maintaining fairness.
• Application:
  • Applies when the parties have agreed to the application of the Streamlined Procedure prior to the constitution of the Tribunal;[5] or
  • when the amount in dispute does not exceed SGD 1 million, prior to the constitution of the Tribunal. In this case, it is open for the parties to apply to the President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration to avoid the Streamlined Procedure. However, no guidelines, factors or threshold limitations are set out for such applications.[6] 

• • Parties may exclude application of the Streamlined Procedure in writing.[7]
• Key Features:
• • Sole Arbitrator: a sole arbitrator shall be appointed for all streamlined procedure arbitrations.[8]

An interesting question that arises is: what if the parties have already agreed to a three-member tribunal in their agreement? Will party autonomy prevail, or will such autonomy be overridden by agreement to the SIAC Rules?

In this regard, the rules expressly provide that the rules and procedures set out for the Streamlined Procedure under the SIAC Rules 2025 will take precedence over the arbitration agreement, including an agreement to appoint more than one arbitrator.[9]

• • Timeline for appointment: Parties are to jointly nominate a sole arbitrator within three (3) days from the SIAC Secretariat’s notification to the parties that the Streamlined Procedure will apply.[10] Failing such joint nomination, the President shall appoint an arbitrator as soon as practically possible.[11]
  • Procedure and conduct:
    • (a) Any challenge to the arbitrator must be submitted within three (3) days from the notice of appointment or when the reasons for challenge became known or should be reasonably known to the challenging party.[12]
    • (b) A case management conference will be conducted within five (5) days from the constitution of the Tribunal;[13]
    • (c) Unless the tribunal determines otherwise, after considering the views of the parties:
      • (i) The arbitration shall be decided based on written submissions and documentary evidence;
      • (ii) No party shall make requests for document production; and
      • (iii) No party shall be entitled to file for expert or factual written witness statements.[14]

• • • (d) The final award shall be made within three (3) months from the constitution of the Tribunal, unless the Registrar extends this time limit.[15]
    • (e) The Tribunal shall state reasons upon which award is based in “summary form”, unless the parties agree no reasons are to be given.[16]
    • (f) Procedures for preliminary determination and early dismissal of claims and defences shall not be applicable.[17]
  • Costs: To make arbitration more accessible, both the Tribunal’s and the SIAC’s administrative fees are capped at 50% of the maximum amounts specified in the Schedule of Fees, unless the Registrar determines otherwise.[18]

This innovation is particularly appealing to enterprises seeking efficient dispute resolution mechanisms of low-value claims as it expedites the procedure and reduces costs.

An interesting question to ponder over is whether arbitrators will be susceptible to accepting appointments where they are pressed for time to adjudicate by issuing an award within three (3) months of their appointment, especially considering that their fee will be capped at 50%. Our view is that time will tell. However, there is no doubt that this presents an opportunity for enthusiastic and young arbitrators to seize.

2. Expanded Expedited Procedure: Broader Reach

SIAC’s Expedited Procedure, already a hallmark of its rules, has been expanded to accommodate a wider range of disputes.[19]

• Monetary Threshold: The monetary ceiling limit for invoking the Expedited Procedure has been raised from SGD 6 million to SGD 10 million, significantly increasing its applicability. Considering the introduction of the Streamlined Procedure, a floor limit of SGD 1 million has also been introduced.[20]
• Application:

• • Parties’ consent to use this procedure at any time prior to the tribunal’s constitution.[21]

• • If the amount in dispute is lower than SGD 1 million, this procedure can apply when the President has determined that the Streamlined Procedure shall not apply.[22]

• • This procedure can apply where the circumstances so warrant, and the President grants an application for expedited procedure.[23]
• Procedure and Conduct:
• • A sole arbitrator shall be appointed unless the President determines otherwise. Unlike the Streamlined Procedure, the President has the specific power to determine otherwise; nonetheless, the Rules expressly provide that it will take precedence over any inconsistent term in the arbitration agreement.[24]

• • The dispute shall be decided based on written submissions and accompanying documentary evidence, unless a party requests for a hearing or the Tribunal decides that a hearing will be appropriate.[25]

• • The final award shall be made within 6 months from the constitution of the Tribunal, unless the Registrar extends this time limit.[26]

• • The Tribunal shall state reasons upon which award is based in “summary form”, unless parties agree no reasons are to be given.[27]

This enhancement reaffirms SIAC’s dedication to promoting swift and effective arbitration for lower to mid-value disputes.

3. Preliminary Determination: A New Avenue for Early Resolution of Preliminary Issues

The codification of Preliminary Determination powers in Rule 46 of the SIAC Rules 2025 is a progressive step aimed at reducing time and costs in arbitration.[28]

• Scope: Tribunals can make binding determinations on legal or factual issues at an early stage of proceedings.[29]
• Application:

• • Where parties agree that the Tribunal may determine an issue on a preliminary basis;[30]
  • The applicant demonstrates that preliminary determination of an issue is likely to contribute to saving time and costs, leading to more efficient and expeditious resolution of the dispute.[31] In case of an application, the Tribunal is required to give parties an opportunity to be heard before deciding the application;[32] and

• • Where the circumstances so warrant.[33]
• Timeline: Tribunals are mandated to render their decisions within 90-days of filing of the application for preliminary determinations.[34]

This provision enhances efficiency by addressing critical issues upfront, potentially narrowing the scope of disputes.

4. Emergency Arbitrator Procedures: Urgent Ex-Parte Reliefs

The updated rules significantly bolster the Emergency Arbitrator framework, ensuring urgent relief when required, prior to the constitution of the Tribunal.[35]

• Emergency Arbitration before Notice of Arbitration: Parties may now request the appointment of an Emergency Arbitrator before filing a Notice of Arbitration, provided that the Notice is submitted within seven (7) days of the request for emergency arbitration.[36]
• Ex-Parte Preliminary Orders: Emergency Arbitrators can issue interim protective measures without notifying other parties, subject to safeguards. [37] Such measures may be highly useful while dealing with a recalcitrant Respondent who may frustrate orders that may be passed by an arbitral tribunal once they receive notice of the proceedings.
• Timeline:
• • The Registrar shall seek to appoint an Emergency Arbitrator within 24 hours from the date of receipt of the application or the receipt of filing fee and deposits.[38]

• • Protective preliminary order applications will be determined by the Emergency Arbitrator within 24 hours of the appointment of the arbitrator.[39]

• • The Emergency Arbitrator shall make the order or award within 14 days from the date of appointment unless the Registrar extends the time.[40]

These updates, especially with respect to protective preliminary orders, reflect SIAC’s responsiveness to the needs of parties requiring immediate relief.

5. Early Dismissal of Claims and Defences: The Striking Out Equivalent

• Application: A party may apply to the Tribunal for early dismissal of claim or defence where a claim or defence is manifestly: (a) without legal merit; or (b) outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.[41]
• Timeline: Tribunals are mandated to render their decisions within 45 days of the date of filing of the application.[42]

6. Security For Costs and Claims: Preserving the Arbitration

Parties are now specifically allowed to file separate applications for security of costs and security of claims with respect to the claims, counterclaims, or crossclaims advanced by them.[43] If a party fails to comply with an order to provide such security, the Tribunal may pass consequential directions.[44]

Parties are now obligated to promptly disclose any material change in the circumstances upon which the Tribunal has ordered security, and Tribunals are empowered to modify or revoke their orders.[45]

While no specific guidelines or factors for consideration are set out, we anticipate that these provisions will be guided by Article 17A of the UNCITRAL Model Law^[46] (as amended in 2006), which reflects the generally accepted legal principles concerning the grant of interim measures of protection and is a consequence of the landmark English decision in American Cyanamid Co v. Ethicom Ltd.[47]

7. Coordinated Proceedings: Simplifying Multiple Arbitrations with Similar Issues

The introduction of Rule 17 on Coordinated Proceedings addresses the challenges of managing multiple related arbitrations.

Where the same Tribunal is constituted and the arbitrations involve common legal or factual issues, the arbitrations can be coordinated so that:

• (a) the arbitrations shall be conducted concurrently or sequentially;[48]
• (b) the arbitrations shall be heard together, and procedural aspects shall be aligned;[49] or
• (c) any arbitrations can be suspended pending determination in any other arbitrations.[50]

Coordinated proceedings will remain separate proceedings with separate decisions, rulings, orders and awards, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.[51]

This innovation is particularly beneficial in cases involving interconnected contracts or multi-party disputes.

8. Third-Party Funding: Enhancing Transparency

The disclosure of Third-Party Funding arrangements is now a mandatory requirement under the 2025 Rules.[52]

• Disclosure Requirements: Parties must disclose the existence of third-party funding arrangements, including the identity and contact details of the funder in its Notice of Arbitration or Response to the Notice of Arbitration or as soon as practicable.[53] This obligation continues to remain with the funded party with respect to its disclosures and any changes in the funding agreement.[54]
• Safeguard against Abuse of Process: Parties are not permitted to enter into third-party funding agreements after the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, if doing so gives rise to a conflict of interest. In such circumstances, the arbitral tribunal is empowered to direct the party to withdraw from the funding agreement.[55]
• Heightened Transparency: Tribunals may order additional disclosures concerning the funder’s interest in the outcome of the arbitration and their commitment to cover adverse costs.[56] While this rule has overarching implications on the confidentiality and privity of funding arrangements, we hope that the application of this provision will be limited to avoiding arbitral hit-and-runs.[57]

This measure promotes transparency and addresses potential conflicts of interest, reinforcing the integrity of the arbitral process by setting in place a mechanism to avoid arbitral hit-and-runs by funders, which is described as a “Gamblers Nirvana for Third Party Funders” by Dr. Gavin Griffith K.C.

9. Encouraging Amicable Resolution

The 2025 Rules emphasize the importance of amicable resolution of disputes, particularly mediation under the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb Protocol, as a complimentary dispute resolution mechanism. The two highlights are:

• First Case Management Conference: Tribunals are required to consult parties at the first case management conference on the potential for the settlement of all or part of the disputes, including the adoption of mediation or the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb Protocol.[58]
• Suspension of Proceedings: Tribunals are now specifically empowered to make necessary directions for the parties to adopt amicable dispute resolution methods, specifically the suspension of proceedings.[59] In our view, while mediation and arbitration can run parallel, this provision may be critical in application as it empowers Tribunals to suspend proceedings and pass directions in favour of amicable resolution notwithstanding strict timelines. However, we presume that it would require the parties to display a genuine intention to resolve their disputes.

By promoting the amicable resolution of disputes, the SIAC has taken a bold stance that is indicative of the institution’s intention to keep the best interests of the disputing parties in mind.

10. Timelines for Issuing Awards: Predictability and Efficiency

The 2025 Rules establish a more structured framework for the issuance of awards with more predictable timelines.

The Tribunal now has a duty to provide the parties and the SIAC Secretariat with a timeline within which it proposes to submit its draft award for scrutiny, within 30 days of the date of submission of the last directed oral or written submissions on the matters to be decided in the award.[60] However, the outer limit for submitting the draft award is 90 days from the date of submission of the last directed oral or written submission.[61]

This change aims to enhance predictability in the arbitral process, ensuring timely resolution of disputes from the date of submission of the last directed submissions.

Conclusion

The SIAC Rules 2025 represent a comprehensive overhaul of SIAC’s arbitration framework, bolstering efficiency, transparency, and adaptability. By incorporating user feedback, introducing innovative procedures, and aligning with international best practices, SIAC continues to set benchmarks in arbitration excellence.

Parties engaging in SIAC arbitrations should familiarize themselves with these updates to maximize the benefits of this forward-looking framework. Parties should also consider the effects of the new rules on their concluded SIAC arbitration agreements.

That said, exciting times lie ahead for SIAC and innovations in arbitration procedure.

*Peter Doraisamy is the Founder and Managing Partner of PDLegal LLC. Peter is an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore and a non-practicing Barrister-at-Law, Middle Temple. His practice has received recognition in various leading independent legal directories including the Legal 500, Chambers & Partners, Benchmark Litigation, and Asialaw.

**Pranav V Kamnani is a Counsel (Registered Foreign Lawyer) at PDLegal LLC and a member of the firm’s International Arbitration and India Desk practice. He is a dual qualified lawyer and admitted to practice in India and the state of New York. He is an alumnus of Columbia Law School and graduated from the LLM Class of 2023.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions shared are the personal views and opinions of the authors and not PDLegal LLC. This article is intended to provide general information only and does not constitute legal advice. It should not be used as a substitute for professional legal consultation. We recommend seeking legal advice before making any decisions based on the information available in this article.

[1] Draft 7^th Edition of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules (Consultation Draft) (hereinafter “SIAC Rules (Consultation Draft) 2023”), Rule 60.

[2] SIAC Rules (Consultation Draft) 2023, Rule 19.5.

[3] SIAC Rules (Consultation Draft) 2023, Rule 26.1 (d).

[4] Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, 7^th Edition, 1 January 2025 (hereinafter “SIAC Rules 2025”), Rule 13 and Schedule 2.

[5] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 13.1 (a).

[6] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 13.1 (b).

[7] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 13.3.

[8] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 2, paragraph 1.

[9] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 2, paragraph 17.

[10] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 12, paragraph 2.

[11] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 12, paragraph 3.

[12] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 12, paragraph 5 (a), and Schedule 12, paragraph 5 (b).

[13] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 12, paragraph 8.

[14] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 12 paragraph 11 (a), Schedule 12 paragraph 11 (b) and Schedule 12 paragraph 11 (c).

[15] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 12, paragraph 15.

[16] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 12, paragraph 13.

[17] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 12, paragraph 18.

[18] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 12, paragraph 16.

[19] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 14.

[20] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 14.2 (a).

[21] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 14.1.

[22] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 14.2 (b).

[23] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 14.2 (c) and Rule 14.3.

[24] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 3 paragraph 1 and Schedule 3 paragraph 7.

[25] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 3, paragraph 3 (a).

[26] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 3, paragraph 6.

[27] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 3, paragraph 4.

[28] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 46.

[29] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 46.1.

[30] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 46.1 (a).

[31] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 46.1 (b).

[32] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 46.3.

[33] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 46.1 (c).

[34] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 46.4 (b).

[35] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 12 and Schedule 1.

[36] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 1 paragraph 6.

[37] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 1 paragraph 16.

[38] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 1 paragraph 7.

[39] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 1 paragraph 27.

[40] SIAC Rules 2025, Schedule 1 paragraph 17.

[41] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 47.1.

[42] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 47.4.

[43] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 48.1.

[44] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 48.2.

[45] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 48.3.

[46] UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in 2006 (UNCITRAL Model Law 2006) Article 17A.

[47] American Cyanamid Co v. Ethicom Ltd [1975] AC 396.

[48] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 17.1 (a).

[49] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 17.1 (b).

[50] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 17.1 (c).

[51] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 17.3.

[52] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 38.

[53] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 38.1.

[54] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 38.2.

[55] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 38.3.

[56] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 38.4.

[57] For more on arbitral hit-and-runs, please see: Commerce Group Corp. and Another v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/17 (Annulment Proceeding), Respondent’s application on security for costs, at ¶ 23.

[58] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 31.4 (a).

[59] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 50.2 (l).

[60] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 53.1.

[61] SIAC Rules 2025, Rule 53.2.