Key updates to the SIAC Rules: A welcome step towards achieving efficiency in arbitration proceedings

Streamlined Procedure and expansion of cases eligible for the Expedited Procedure

A key development is the introduction of the Streamlined Procedure (Rule 13 and Schedule 2 of the Rules), which will apply to disputes below SGD1m in value (unless the President determines that it shall not apply) or if parties agree to apply the procedure prior to the tribunal’s constitution. 

The Streamlined Procedure has the potential to significantly reduce the time and costs of proceedings. Among other things, it requires the award to be made within three months from the tribunal’s constitution, caps the costs of arbitration at 50 percent of the maximum limits under the Schedule of Fees, and requires the arbitration to be decided on basis of written submissions and documents (unless the tribunal determines otherwise). The Streamlined Procedure is therefore well-suited for low value disputes of low complexity; while some commentators have questioned the demand for it, we expect significant interest from users of arbitration. 

In addition, the threshold for parties to request the application of the Expedited Procedure (which requires the award to be made within six months from the tribunal’s constitution) has been raised from SGD6m to SGD10m. 

Codification of tribunal’s power to make a Preliminary Determination 

Rule 46 of the SIAC Rules 2025 provides that a party may apply to the tribunal for a final and binding preliminary determination of any issue where: (i)  the parties agree, (ii) the applicant can demonstrate that preliminary determination would contribute to time and costs savings and a more efficient and expeditious resolution of the dispute, or (iii) the circumstances of the case warrant it. 

In our experience, SIAC tribunals have been amenable to dealing with applications for preliminary determination pursuant to their inherent powers to conduct proceedings in an appropriate manner to achieve the fair and expedition resolution of the dispute. That said, the codification of this power provides a helpful reminder to parties of the availability of this mechanism to achieve efficiency by considering the issues that could be dispositive of the case at an early stage. It also provides tribunals with directions as to how an application for preliminary determination, if allowed, should proceed. In particular, it provides that the preliminary determination should be made within 90 days from the date of filing of the application (unless the Registrar extends the time). 

Coordinated Proceedings

Under Rule 17 of the SIAC Rules 2025, a party may now apply for the coordination of multiple arbitrations where the same tribunal is constituted in the arbitrations and a common question of law or fact arises. The tribunal has the power to order that the arbitrations are conducted concurrently or sequentially, heard together, or for any of the arbitrations to be suspended pending a determination in any of the other arbitrations. Co-ordinated arbitrations remain formally separate, meaning they are not consolidated; this mechanism therefore provides an additional option for parties to streamline the resolution of multiple arbitrations. 

Enhancement of the Emergency Arbitrator procedure

The SIAC Rules 2025 include a number of changes to the Emergency Arbitrator procedure. In particular, while the current Rules require an application for emergency interim relief to be filed at the earliest with the Notice of Arbitration, the SIAC Rules 2025 allow applicants to file the application up to seven days before submitting the Notice of Arbitration, and also requires the Emergency Arbitrator to establish a schedule for the consideration of the application within 24 hours of appointment (as opposed to two days under the current Rules). This allows a party seeking emergency interim relief to do so more easily and quickly. 

A significant update is the introduction of protective preliminary orders. This provides parties with the option to seek ex parte relief from the Emergency Arbitrator (i.e. without having to provide notice to the other parties). This development is particularly novel in the arbitration context, where national laws and arbitration rules have typically been interpreted as precluding ex parte applications in arbitration. Therefore, a party who requires immediate and urgent relief coupled with an element of surprise to make the order effective (such as freezing orders to prevent dissipation of assets) can now seek such an order in arbitration proceedings. The Emergency Arbitrator is required to determine the request for a protective preliminary order within 24 hours of its appointment. If such an order is granted, the applicant is required to transmit the order to the other parties within 12 hours, failing which the order would expire three days after the date it was issued. 

Authored by Rob Palmer, Shi Jin Chia.