The new SIAC Rules: three key takeaways

On 1 January 2025, the 7th Edition of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules (the SIAC Rules 2025) entered into force. The SIAC Rules 2025 apply to any arbitration commenced on or after that date unless otherwise agreed by the parties. They replace the 6th Edition of the SIAC Rules published in 2016 (the SIAC Rules 2016).

Transparency, cost-effectiveness and consistency of both the arbitral process and its outcomes are key factors for commercial parties. The revisions in the SIAC Rules 2025 which address these concerns are welcomed and commercial parties ought to consider carefully how the changes may impact them and the resolution of their disputes. In this update, we take a detailed look at what (in our view) are the three most significant developments:

• the revamped scheme for fast-track arbitrations, with the new Streamlined Procedure and changes to the Expedited Procedure;
• the amendments to the Emergency Arbitrator provisions, which enhance a party's ability to obtain urgent interim relief, including on a without notice basis; and
• the introduction of provisions on third-party funding agreements, including disclosure requirements and a prohibition on parties entering into funding agreements in certain circumstances.

1. Fast-track arbitrations

Fast-track arbitration has been a feature of the SIAC Rules since 2010 when the Expedited Procedure was first introduced. The SIAC Rules 2025 revamp fast-track arbitration with the new Streamlined Procedure and the widening of parties' eligibility to use the Expedited Procedure.

The Streamlined Procedure (Rule 13 and Schedule 2) applies to arbitrations where the parties have agreed to its application before the Tribunal is constituted or where the amount in dispute does not exceed SGD 1 million (USD 750,000). In the latter case, a party may apply to the SIAC President to exclude application of the Streamlined Procedure.

Streamlined Procedure arbitrations are to be conducted as follows:

• a sole arbitrator is to be appointed within a short timeframe either jointly by the parties or by the SIAC President if the parties do not agree;
• the default position is that the arbitration will be decided on the basis of written submissions and documentary evidence only, without document production or evidence. If a hearing is conducted, the default is that the hearing will be virtual;
• the arbitrator must issue an award within three months from the date of constitution of the Tribunal (subject to an extension by the Registrar); and
• the Tribunal and SIAC's fees are capped at 50% of the maximum limits calculated in accordance with SIAC's Schedule of Fees.

The new Streamlined Procedure is complemented by widened eligibility criteria for the Expedited Procedure (Rule 14 and Schedule 3). Under the SIAC Rules 2025, the Expedited Procedure will apply to arbitrations where the parties have agreed to its application before the Tribunal is constituted. A party may also apply to use the Expedited Procedure where:

• the amount in dispute does not exceed SGD 10 million (USD 7.3 million), increased from SGD 6 million (USD 4.4 million) under the SIAC Rules 2016; or
• the circumstances of the case warrant its application, in place of the previous requirement to demonstrate "exceptional urgency".

Ashurst comments

The Streamlined Procedure is a welcome addition to the SIAC Rules. In our experience, the costs associated with traditional (or even Expedited Procedure) arbitration often act as a barrier to parties pursuing lower value claims. The Streamlined Procedure seeks to address this issue, with the abbreviated arbitral process and strict timeframes expected to result in meaningful cost reductions. The ambitious three month timeframe for an award (subject to an extension by the Registrar) – half that of the Expedited Procedure – also makes the Streamlined Procedure one of the quickest fast-track procedures available under institutional rules globally.

The Streamlined Procedure is well-suited for parties with low value and/or less complex disputes, such as straightforward debt recovery claims or disputes turning on legal issues, where fact or expert evidence is not required.

It is notable that the Streamlined Procedure applies by default to arbitrations where the amount in dispute does not exceed SGD 1 million. This approach is not uncommon with fast-track procedures under other institutional rules. However, parties that prefer a more fulsome arbitral process should consider expressly agreeing in writing to exclude application of the Streamlined Procedure.

The expansion of the Expedited Procedure is also welcome. The previous requirement to show "exceptional urgency" imposed a high threshold for a party wanting to use the Expedited Procedure. The lowering of the threshold contemplates that a party could apply to use the Expedited Procedure if, for example, the amount in dispute exceeds SGD 10 million, but the dispute is relatively straightforward.

2. Urgent interim relief from an Emergency Arbitrator

The SIAC Rules 2025 strengthen a party's ability to seek and obtain urgent interim relief and conservatory measures from an Emergency Arbitrator (Rule 12.1 and Schedule 1).

First, parties may now apply for interim relief before commencing an arbitration, though the Notice of Arbitration will need to be filed within seven days. The SIAC Rules 2016 only permitted a party to seek interim relief from an Emergency Arbitrator at the same time as, or subsequent to, filing the Notice of Arbitration.

Second, and more significantly, the SIAC Rules 2025 permit a party to seek interim relief from an Emergency Arbitrator on a preliminary basis without notice to the other party. Under the SIAC Rules 2016, interim relief was only available on notice to the other party and after the Emergency Arbitrator provided the parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Under these provisions:

• a party can apply for interim relief from an Emergency Arbitrator without notice to the other party, accompanied by an application for a preliminary order directing a party not to frustrate the purpose of the emergency interim relief requested (the Protective Preliminary Order);
• the Emergency Arbitrator must determine the Protective Preliminary Order application within 24 hours of his/her appointment;
• if the order is granted, the applicant must promptly notify all parties within 12 hours;
• the Emergency Arbitrator must give any party against whom the order is made an opportunity to present its case at the earliest practicable time, following which the Emergency Arbitrator must promptly decide any objection to the Protective Preliminary Order; and
• any Protective Preliminary Order expires 14 days after the date it was issued. The Emergency Arbitrator may issue an order or award adopting or modifying the Protective Preliminary Order, or granting the interim relief as appropriate, after all parties have been given an opportunity to present their cases.

Ashurst comments

The Protective Preliminary Order provisions are a significant development. Most institutional rules permit applications for interim relief only with notice to the other party, though the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration 2021 are a notable exception permitting without notice interim relief in "exceptional circumstances". There are of course situations where a party may need to seek interim relief without notifying the other party, for example, to freeze funds to prevent them from being moved overseas or to preserve important evidence. In those situations, a party is usually required to apply to the courts for that relief.

In theory, the amendment enhances SIAC arbitration as a one-stop shop, with parties no longer needing to rely on the courts for without notice interim relief. However, the issue of enforceability of a Protective Preliminary Order is complex. In Singapore, the orders may be enforceable with the permission of the High Court pursuant to section 12 of the International Arbitration Act 1994. However, the enforceability of Protective Preliminary Orders in other jurisdictions may be less predictable noting that not all national arbitral laws include provisions on the enforceability of such orders. Further, orders from an Emergency Arbitrator are not considered awards for the purpose of the New York Convention.

In practice, a party that expects to enforce a Protective Preliminary Order may be better served seeking that relief from the courts notwithstanding the new Protective Preliminary Order provisions. The less examined question, however, is whether the courts in Singapore will still retain as wide of a discretion to grant such relief given that Section 12A(6) of the International Arbitration Act limits the Court's power to grant interim measures to circumstances in which the Tribunal or Emergency Arbitrator "has no power or is unable for the time being to act effectively". Now that Emergency Arbitrators can apparently act effectively in situations where ex parte relief is required, the court's role in granting interim relief is potentially further diminished. That may be less welcome to parties who prefer optionality and the ability to adapt to the specific circumstances of the case (although if there is to be scrutiny here we think it should be on the desirability of Section 12A(6) rather than the SIAC's welcome innovations).

3. Provisions relating to third-party funding

Third-party funding for international arbitrations seated in Singapore became permissible in 2017 after the SIAC Rules 2016 were published. The SIAC Rules 2025 include a new Rule responding to this change and expanding on previous guidance such as SIAC PN – 01/17 (Rule 38).

The SIAC Rules 2025 impose disclosure obligations on funded parties. In particular:

• parties are required to disclose the existence of any third-party funding agreement, along with the identity and contact details of the third-party funder in the Notice of Arbitration or the Response to the Notice of Arbitration, or as soon as practicable upon concluding a third-party funding agreement;
• a funded party must as soon as practicable notify the Tribunal, the parties, and the Registrar of any changes to the third-party funding agreement;
• the Tribunal may make orders for disclosure in respect of the third-party funding agreement as it sees fit, including details of the third-party funder's interest in the outcome of the proceedings and whether the third-party funder has committed to undertake adverse costs liability; and
• the Tribunal may take appropriate measures, including issuing an order or award for sanctions, damages or costs if a party does not comply with any obligations or orders for disclosure.

The SIAC Rules 2025 also limit a party's right to enter into a third-party funding agreement in certain circumstances. In particular, a party is prohibited from entering into a third-party funding agreement after the Tribunal is constituted which may give rise to a conflict of interest with any member of the Tribunal. In those circumstances, the Tribunal may direct the funded party to withdraw from the funding agreement.

Ashurst comments

The rise of third-party funding in international arbitration has been welcome but does come with concerns about conflicts of interest between an arbitrator and a party (including its funder). A potential conflict could arise where, for example, an arbitrator, or his or her colleagues, or law firm, has a relationship with the third-party funder.

The new disclosure provisions in the SIAC Rules 2025 are designed to prevent such conflicts of interest arising. These provisions bring the SIAC Rules 2025 in line with other institutional rules, which impose disclosure obligations on funded parties, however the extent of those obligations vary widely. Parties will need to be alive to disclosure obligations at the outset of any third-party funding arrangements.

Crucially, the SIAC Rules 2025 go a step further than other institutional rules in prohibiting parties from, after the Tribunal is constituted, entering into third-party funding agreements which may create a conflict of interest. In doing so, SIAC arguably has prioritised preserving the integrity of an appointed Tribunal and the enforceability of an award over a party's right to obtain funding. While many may agree that this provision strikes the right balance, parties (and funders) should nevertheless be mindful of this restriction on the right to obtain third-party funding.

Conclusion

While there are a number of other notable changes in the SIAC Rules 2025, this article seeks to highlight the three that we think stand out. All in all, these and other changes show that SIAC continues to be a leader in arbitral innovation. We congratulate the SIAC on this milestone and look forward to working with our clients to navigate the rules going forward.