30 years of the International Arbitration Act: a review

Issue 1: Whether to confer the power to make cost orders for arbitral proceedings following a successful setting aside of an award on the court

Current position: The courts have no power to make an order in respect of the costs of the arbitral proceedings, vary the costs award made by the tribunal, or remit the issue of costs to the tribunal when a party is successful in a set aside application.

Recommendation: SIDRA recommends an express provision in the IAA be enacted to give the courts discretion to make an order in respect of costs of the arbitration proceedings and remit the issue of costs as an exceptional remedy following a successful set aside. A key driver behind this recommendation is the recognition that there are deserving parties in deserving scenarios who should be permitted to recover costs of the arbitral proceedings following the setting aside of an award.

Issue 2: Whether separate cost principles should be applied in respect of unsuccessful setting aside applications

Current position: The default position in proceedings before the High Court and the Court of Appeal is for costs to be awarded to a successful litigant on a standard basis and for costs to be awarded on an indemnity basis only in exceptional circumstances. Consistent with most other jurisdictions (save for Hong Kong where the default position is to grant indemnity costs when an award is unsuccessfully challenged), there are no separate costs principles applicable to setting aside applications in Singapore. That said, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) takes a different approach and has a wide discretion to make appropriate costs orders.

Recommendation:  SIDRA does not recommend any change to the current default position, and has expressed the hope for the SICC to grow to hear more setting-aside applications.

Issue 3: Whether  to introduce a leave requirement for appeals arising from a decision in a setting aside application

Current position: In contrast with the UK and Hong Kong, in Singapore a High Court’s decision on the setting aside of an arbitral award is appealable as of right.

Recommendation: SIDRA recommends that leave from the appellate court be sought. This would bring Singapore in line with other major arbitral seats.

Issue 4: Whether the time limit to file setting aside applications should be reduced

Current position: The time limit in Singapore for filing a setting aside application is three months from receipt of the award, even in cases involving fraud and corruption. This is in line with the Model Law, though it is recognised that this may allow for fraudsters and corrupt parties to benefit from their wrongful conduct where such conduct does not emerge within this time limit.

Recommendation: SIDRA recommends that the three-month time limit is maintained but that a new provision be enacted to give the courts discretion to extend the time limit in setting aside applications involving fraud and corruption. While it is appreciated that shorter timelines (such as the 28-day time limit in the UK) have the benefit of providing speedy finality, SIDRA recognises that international arbitrations in Singapore increasingly involve foreign elements and considers that three months remains an appropriate period to seek local counsel advice for any setting aside application.

Issue 5: Whether a right of appeal on questions of law is desirable

Current position: Unlike other jurisdictions, there is no right to appeal on questions of law in Singapore.

Recommendation: SIDRA recommends an opt-in right of appeal on questions of law, which it views as striking the right balance between enhancing party autonomy and avoiding unnecessary complexity in cases where parties prefer arbitration primarily for its efficiency.

Issue 6: How to ascertain the governing law of the arbitration agreement

Current position: Singapore currently adopts a three-stage common law framework to determine the governing law of the arbitration agreement: (a) an express choice of law; (b) an implied choice of law and otherwise (c) the law with the closest and most real connection with the arbitration agreement (the key principle of which is that the governing law of the main contract is usually the implied choice of law for the arbitration agreement contained therein unless there are indications to the contrary).

Recommendation: SIDRA recommends the enaction of statutory choice of law rules for determining the governing law, which largely reflect the current common law approach. Notably, this differs from the new English statutory approach which provides that, by default, an arbitration agreement is governed by the law of the seat of the arbitration unless the parties expressly agree otherwise (see our article summarising the key changes introduced by the English Arbitration Act 2025). Reasons cited for the divergence from the English position include Singapore’s international outlook and the acknowledgment that cases arbitrated in Singapore are likely to have predominantly foreign elements – thus justifying the application of foreign law to parties’ arbitration agreement – as well as the preference to ensure that contractual issues pertaining to the main contract and the arbitration agreement are generally determined in a consistent manner under the same law.

Issue 7: Whether the review of the tribunal’s jurisdiction should be conducted by way of an appeal or rehearing

Current position: Presently, a tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction is subject to de novo review by the Singapore courts. This position is consistent with most other key jurisdictions, though there has been a recent change in the English position to only allow a limited review where a challenge is brought by a party who has taken part in the arbitration.

Recommendation: SIDRA recommends no change to the current standard of review, which it views as an essential safeguard to ensure that the parties have in fact consented to arbitration. There is also a concern that the new English approach may create a perverse incentive for objecting parties not to participate in the arbitration proceedings.

Issue 8: Whether the summary disposal powers of tribunals should be set out in the IAA

Current position: The IAA does not expressly set out the summary disposal powers of tribunals, notwithstanding that many major institutional rules provide for it in some form. Such a power was recently introduced in the UK for claims/defences with “no real prospect” of succeeding.

Recommendation: SIDRA recommends that the IAA should be amended to expressly provide tribunals with the power to summarily dispose of matters in dispute by way of an award, on the basis that it would provide certainty where parties have not agreed on a set of rules or where the applicable rules are silent as to whether the tribunal has such a power. However, in contrast to the English position, it recommends that the applicable threshold for summary disposal not be prescribed, and rather left to the tribunal and parties to agree in line with the flexible approach in arbitration.

Authored by Rob Palmer, and Shi Jin Chia.