Arbitration analysis: This case involved a successful partial setting aside of an arbitral Award of damages pursuant to Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (‘Model Law’) on grounds that the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. In this case, the Singapore High Court partially set aside a part of the Award imposing liability for damages for breach of contract on two of the three Respondents, finding that the issue of the two Respondents’ breach of contract and liability for the same never arose in the arbitration nor was it within the scope of the submission to arbitration. This case provides useful guidance as to how a court approaches a challenge to an award made in excess of a tribunal’s jurisdiction. Written by Magdalene Ong, partner at WongPartnership LLP.

Arbitration analysis: In Maxx Engineering, the Singapore High Court ordered the specific performance of an obligation to refer a dispute to mediation which was contained in a tiered dispute resolution clause in the Sub-Contract between the parties. The respondent was thus ordered to submit the dispute to a concurrent mediation process even though the arbitration process was already underway (and no stay had been applied for or granted) and even though the dispute resolution clause expressly stated that a submission to mediation was not a condition precedent to parties’ exercise of their right to refer any dispute to arbitration. This marks the first time an order for specific performance of an obligation to mediate has been made, and gives cause for litigating parties and practitioners alike to reconsider how they go about drafting and navigating the interpretation and performance of a tiered dispute resolution clause when confronted with a dispute. It also signals clearly the stance of the Singapore Courts to promote amicable resolution of disputes, which is similarly reflected in the recently enacted Rules of Court 2021. Written by Ronald JJ Wong, director, and Stuart Peter, associate, at Covenant Chambers LLC.

Arbitration analysis: Paul Tan, partner and Devathas Satianathan, associate at Rajah and Tann consider the Singapore High Court’s decision in Midea v Tornado in which the Singapore High Court set aside an arbitral award on a number of grounds. The applicant was successfully represented by Paul Tan and Devathas Satianathan of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an application to set aside a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) tribunal’s award terminating an arbitration under Article 32(2)(c) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (Model Law), on the basis that international sanctions imposed on the claimant had rendered it impossible to continue the arbitration proceedings. The Singapore High Court dismissed the setting aside application. The court held that Article 32(2)(c) obliges a tribunal to terminate an arbitration when it finds as a fact that continuation has become impossible. This obligation is mandatory and leaves no room for the tribunal to weigh the prejudice to either party or to consider the cause of the impossibility. The right to a determination on the merits is not absolute and is implicitly qualified by Article 32(2)(c). The court further held that the tribunal had afforded the applicant natural justice throughout the process of determining the termination application. Written by Katie Chung (partner at Baker Botts (Singapore) L.L.P.) and Lukas Lim (special counsel at Baker Botts (Singapore) L.L.P.).

The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has published a discussion paper, in cooperation with Aicadium, entitled Generative AI: Implications for Trust and Governance. This discussion paper proposes ideas for senior leaders in government and businesses on the trusted and responsible adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI). It identifies new opportunities, new risks, increasing the safety of AI and building a foundation for AI governance frameworks.

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre, an arbitral institution, based in Singapore. SIAC arbitrations are administered and conducted pursuant to the SIAC Arbitration Rules. The institution also provides services for ad hoc arbitrations.

Arbitration analysis: The 7th Edition of the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (‘SIAC Rules 2025’) is the latest edition of the rules governing arbitrations administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (‘SIAC’), a leading arbitration institution. The SIAC Rules 2025 contain a host of procedural innovations and refinements of existing features which aim to provide a fair, flexible, efficient and cost-effective framework to resolve domestic and international disputes through arbitration. Written by Jennifer Lim, independent advocate at Duxton Hill Chambers.

The Singapore International Commercial Court (International Committee) Bill is aimed at establishing an International Committee of the Singapore International Commercial Court. The International Committee is to be a standalone committee, that will ‘hear prescribed civil appeals and related cases from prescribed foreign jurisdictions.’ The type of cases that will fall within the International Committee’s remit are not provided for in the Bill; rather that will be set out in subsequent regulation. It is intended that the decision of the International Committee will be final.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved a challenge to two SIAC arbitral awards on multiple grounds, including a challenge to the presiding arbitrator for apparent bias, excess of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice. In keeping with the Singapore courts’ pro-arbitration stance, the challenges were dismissed by the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) in their entirety, with the judgment also discussing the important procedural question of when a subsequent award should be admitted as evidence in a challenge to an earlier award in the same proceedings. Written by Colin Liew, Duxton Hill Chambers (Singapore Group Practice).

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note aims to provide an understanding of the right of appeal in the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and sets out the process by which to appeal a judgment handed down by the SICC. It is not maintained and is for background information only. The monetary sums referred to in this Practice Note are Singapore dollars. Right of appeal Increasingly, the availability of an appellate mechanism in high value complex commercial disputes is becoming a crucial safety valve desired by parties, relegating finality in favour for the correct application of their chosen law. The arbitral process provides for no avenue for an appeal on the merits of the case from an arbitration award, and the grounds for setting aside of such an award are very limited. The new framework creating the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) addresses this critical aspect of dispute resolution. An appeal from the decision of the SICC lies to the Singapore Court of Appeal (Singapore International Commercial Court Practice Directions,

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note addresses the vital issue of enforcement of SICC judgments. It considers the impact of the Hague Convention on the Choice of Court Agreements (2005 Hague Convention) and the Singapore Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016 (CCAA 2016). It also considers the impact of this act in relation to other existing legislation being the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264) (RECJA) and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Cap 265) (REFJA). It is not maintained and is for background information only. The references in this Practice Note are to Singapore rules and legislation. Links to these are provided in Related documents section—external links and Our Lawyer Team Recommends. A key reason for the enduring popularity of arbitration is the relative ease of cross-border enforcement that is available under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention). This means that convincing users to move away from arbitration will be challenging. This reality is not lost on

ARCHIVED: This archived Checklist sets out considerations when progressing a matter through the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) including pre-action and commencement of the proceedings. It is not maintained and is for background information only. Stage of proceedings Considerations Considered Pre-action Decide on choice of 'counsel', who may be:—an advocate and solicitor—a person admitted to practise as an advocate and solicitor under section 15 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161), ie an ad hoc admission—a foreign lawyer with a full registration under Legal Profession Act (Cap 161), s 36P. A foreign lawyer with the alternative 'restricted registration' may only do the things provided under Legal Profession Act (Cap 161), s 36P(2) Consider whether it is necessary to apply for pre-action production of documents. If a person intends to make such an application, the procedure and grounds for doing so are set out in Order 110, rule 19 of the Rules of Court Check whether the court has jurisdiction to hear and try the action,