Arbitration analysis: This decision clarifies the limited circumstances in which non-parties may invoke arbitration agreements under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 2001 (C(RTP)A 2001). The High Court of Singapore refused a stay sought by company officers who relied on contractual exclusion and indemnity clauses, holding that such provisions did not confer a right to compel arbitration. The court emphasised that arbitration remains grounded in consent and requires clear contractual language before third parties can rely on it. Practically, the case underscores the need for precise drafting where parties intend to extend arbitral rights to non-signatories, and confirms that defensive reliance on contractual protections will not suffice to trigger arbitration. Produced in partnership with Violet Huang, solicitor, Nusa Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that where a debt is prima facie subject to a valid arbitration agreement, the applicant ordinarily lacks standing to present a winding-up petition unless the debt has been determined in arbitration or the debtor has abused the court’s process. The judgment clarifies the limited scope of the abuse of process exception, emphasising that only clear and unequivocal admissions of liability and quantum can engage it. It also confirms that a disputed debt does not become a contingent debt merely because liability remains unresolved. The decision reinforces Singapore’s strongly pro-arbitration approach and limits the strategic use of insolvency proceedings where arbitrable disputes remain outstanding. Produced in partnership with Violet Huang of NUSAchambers.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an application to set aside an arbitral award under section 24(a) of the Singapore International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) (the IAA) on the basis that it was induced or affected by fraud. The applicant argued that the respondent had concealed or suppressed evidence of a regulatory investigation into fraud and corruption that was related to the underlying arbitration, which, if disclosed, would have materially affected the outcome of the arbitration. The application was dismissed, and the court gave helpful guidance on the meaning of ‘fraud’ under the IAA, s 24(a). ‘Fraud’ refers to procedural fraud occurring in the course of the arbitration that is causatively linked to the making of the award. The court also clarified that all applications to set aside arbitral awards under the IAA, including under IAA, s 24, are strictly subject to the three-month time limit in Article 34(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the ‘Model Law’), even in cases of fraud. Written by Daryl Chew, partner, and Shaun Pereira, associate, at Shearman & Sterling LLP, with assistance from Daniel Ang.

Arbitration analysis: In Samsung E&A (Thailand) Co, Ltd v Linklaters LLP, the Singapore High Court partially granted an application for document production in proceedings seeking to disqualify arbitration counsel over alleged conflicts of interest and misuse of confidential information. The court held that production must be directed at a material issue, rather than conflicts of interest in the abstract. Where information barriers form a central defence, their operation may warrant disclosure notwithstanding restrictions on producing internal correspondence. The decision highlights the importance of establishing and documenting effective information barriers promptly, while confirming the protection afforded by legal advice privilege and the court’s cautious power to inspect documents where privilege is disputed. Produced in partnership with Dr. Gordon Blanke, founding principal at Blanke Arbitration & Associate Tenant at No 5 Barristers’ Chambers, and Suruchi Sharma, trainee solicitor at Blanke Arbitration.

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore High Court has stayed proceedings brought by a Singapore investment vehicle against a Swiss company and its founder, holding that exclusive Swiss jurisdiction clauses in the parties' shareholder agreements governed the core investment and shareholding dispute, with a discrete licensing claim stayed in favour of ICC arbitration. In addition to applying the ‘strong cause’ test in light of the exclusive jurisdiction clause, the court also addressed the fragmentation resulting from the split jurisdictional outcome, holding that parties who choose different dispute resolution mechanisms for different claims must accept the resulting fragmentation as an inherent consequence of their contractual bargain. The decision is significant for practitioners advising on multi-agreement, cross-border transactions. It confirms that the Singapore courts will not shy away from accepting that complex commercial disputes may have to be resolved in different fora (with the attendant risks of dispute fragmentation and inconsistent outcomes), if that is what the parties have contractually agreed in their dispute resolution arrangements. Written by Colin Liew, director and head of International Litigation, Providence Law Asia LLC.

Arbitration analysis: In NextEra Energy Global Holdings BV and another v Kingdom of Spain [2026] SGHC 43, the Singapore High Court dismissed Spain's application to set aside a registration order for an ICSID award, holding that Spain could not rely on state immunity to resist enforcement. The court found that both the exceptions in section 4 of the State Immunity Act 1979 (SIA) (the Submission Exception) and in s 11 (the Arbitration Exception) applied, and that Spain's Intra-EU Objection (the argument that EU law invalidates investor-state arbitration between EU Member States under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)) failed. The decision is significant for arbitration practitioners as it strengthens Singapore's position as a reliable enforcement forum for Investor-State awards and confirms the limited scope of sovereign immunity in this context. It also matters for public international law practitioners advising States: treaty-based consent to arbitration carries consequences at the enforcement stage that States cannot easily escape. Written by Colin Liew, director and head of International Litigation practice group at Providence Law Asia LLC.

Arbitration analysis: The General Division of the High Court of Singapore set aside an arbitral award for want of a valid arbitration agreement, holding that a respondent’s non-participation in arbitration cannot give rise to a deemed agreement under section 2A(6) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA 1994). That provision addresses formal validity, not contractual formation. The court also rejected reliance on a forged charterparty, ratification and payment of freight as establishing consent to arbitrate. The decision reinforces the need for claimants to prove an arbitration agreement independently of a respondent’s silence or commercial conduct. It also confirms that respondents may preserve jurisdictional objections by declining to participate, although doing so carries enforcement risks. Produced in partnership with A/Prof Darius Chan, teacher at Singapore Management University and independent arbitrator with Fountain Court Chambers and Breakpoint LLC.

Arbitration analysis: This case concerned a peremptory order (also known as an ‘unless’ order) granted by the Singapore High Court, which provided that the claimant’s application for the enforcement of an arbitral award would be dismissed unless it complied with a document production order (the ‘Unless Order’). The second respondent alleged that the claimant had failed to comply with the Unless Order and accordingly sought to have the claimant’s enforcement application dismissed. The court agreed that the claimant was in breach of the Unless Order, and that the appropriate outcome was to dismiss the claimant’s enforcement application. This case serves as an important reminder to legal practitioners of the need to ensure that ‘unless’ orders are properly complied with, and of the serious adverse consequences that may otherwise follow. Written by Yu-Jin Tay, Global Co-Head of International Arbitration and Office Managing Partner (Singapore) at Mayer Brown.

This Practice Note is part of a multi-jurisdictional guide addressing essential aspects of forming specific business entities in global jurisdictions. Leading law firms in the Multilaw global law firm network answer key questions on this topic. This guide discusses key considerations when forming a private limited company in Singapore. Current as of 13 January 2023. Author: Lau Kiat Wee and Amos Tan, Quahe Woo and Palmer LLC, a Multilaw member firm Common entities 1. What form of entity is the subject of this questionnaire? What other forms of entities are commonly used in this jurisdiction and are the subject of another questionnaire response? The most common form of corporate entity in Singapore is a private company limited by shares, also known as a private limited company (the subject of this response). 2. Identify other types of entities in your jurisdiction that exist but will not be the subject of a questionnaire response at this time • Sole proprietorship—A business owned by one person, which is not a separate legal entity, and the owner has unlimited

Arbitration analysis: What happens when an applicant seeks a case management stay of its own application to set aside an arbitral award in favour of a pending arbitration? Should a higher threshold apply? In this case, the court granted the case management stay of the setting aside application, and declined to apply a higher threshold for the grant of such an application. In determining whether to grant the stay, the court engaged in a balancing exercise of various factors, and gave helpful guidance on the factors it would consider in the grant of a case management stay. The court also examined the distinctions between case management stays and statutory stays under the Arbitration Act 2001 as a matter of source, scope and substance. This has various practical implications on the granting of case management stays. Written by Nandakumar Ponniya, Celeste Ang, principals at Baker & McKenzie Wong & Leow, and Danitza Hon, a senior associate at Baker & Mckenzie Wong & Leow.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note was originally written for LexisAdvance® Practical Guidance Singapore. It covers actions by the authorities, including customs and the police, as well as civil actions and private criminal prosecutions by rights owners. In some countries, it is also possible to bring administrative action against infringers, but these are not dealt with here. Customs The Singapore Customs enforces IP rights in Singapore. It is responsible for goods imported into the border. The customs officers have the authority to inspect and detain goods imported into Singapore for a wide range of IP infringements. The key legislation is the Trade Marks Act 1998 which came into force on 15 January 1999 and its subsidiary legislation, namely the Trade Marks (Border Enforcement Measures) Rules (Cap 332, R2). Under the Trade Marks Act, s 82(1), rights holders should make an application by way of a written notice to the Director-General of the Singapore Customs if they wish to restrict the importation of infringing goods. The written notice:

Law360: The Singapore Court of Appeal has reversed a lower court's decision that favoured a US$200m arbitral award to an investment firm following a dispute over a slot gambling club, saying the award can’t be enforced because the parties did not choose the seat of arbitration.