Key takeaways
Singapore explores key arbitration reforms
The Ministry of Law is reviewing eight core areas of the International Arbitration Act to align with global best practices.
Governing law and jurisdiction under review
Singapore is considering adopting the UK’s new approach to determining governing law and limiting jurisdictional challenges.
Tribunals may gain express summary powers
A proposal to allow tribunals to summarily dismiss weak claims reflects a shift toward streamlined, cost-effective arbitration.
The UK’s Arbitration Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 24 February 2025 and introduced a number of reforms to the UK Arbitration Act 1996 aimed at modernising the UK arbitration law.
Hot on the heels of these latest reforms, the Singapore Ministry of Law initiated a public consultation on 21 March 2025 seeking public feedback on Singapore’s international arbitration regime and the Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA) on eight issues:
Whether to confer on the court the power to make cost orders for arbitral proceedings following a successful setting aside of an award.
Whether separate cost principles should be applied in respect of unsuccessful setting aside applications.
Whether to introduce a leave requirement for appeals to the Court of Appeal arising from a High Court decision in a setting aside application.
Whether the time limit to file a setting aside application should be reduced.
Whether a right of appeal on questions of law is desirable.
How to ascertain the governing law of the arbitration agreement.
Whether the review of the tribunal’s jurisdiction should be conducted by way of an appeal or a rehearing.
Whether the summary disposal powers of arbitral tribunals should be set out in the IAA.
Issues 6-8 were the subject of recent changes to UK arbitration law introduced by the UK Arbitration Act 2025 and are the focus of this article.
Issue 6: Ascertaining governing law
Prior to the UK Arbitration Act 2025, the common law position in the UK for ascertaining the governing law of the arbitration agreement was established by the UK Supreme Court in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS -v- OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 (Enka).
The Supreme Court held that, in the absence of an express choice of law, the law governing the arbitration agreement is by implication the same as the law governing the main contract unless there is good reason to conclude otherwise. Where there is no express or implied choice governing the law of the main contract, the law governing the arbitration agreement is that with which the arbitration agreement is most closely connected, which would usually be the seat of the arbitration.
The current position under Singapore law for ascertaining the governing law of the arbitration agreement is similar to the previous UK common law position established in Enka.
The UK Arbitration Act 2025 reversed the UK common law position by providing that the law of the seat will govern the arbitration agreement unless expressly agreed otherwise. The UK Law Commission recommended this change as it would result in more arbitration agreements being governed by English law.
In noting the changes introduced by the UK Arbitration Act 2025 in its consultation paper, the Singapore Ministry of Law seeks views on whether Singapore should: (a) retain the Singapore common law approach; (b) enact a statutory choice of law approach in the IAA; or (c) adopt the position under the UK Arbitration Act 2025.
A reform to Singapore’s international arbitration regime on this critical issue – whether that be option (b) or option (c) – is likely to be welcomed given the huge significance of the governing law of the arbitration agreement and Singapore’s pro-arbitration stance and status as a market-leading international arbitration forum.
Issue 7: Challenges to tribunal’s jurisdiction
Section 10 of the IAA concerns challenges to the Singapore courts of an arbitral tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction. The current position under Singapore law is that such jurisdictional challenges are heard de novo by the Singapore courts, i.e., a full rehearing. This was also the position in the UK under s.67 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 prior to the UK Arbitration Act 2025.
The UK Arbitration Act 2025 has limited the scope of a jurisdictional challenge where a tribunal has already ruled on its jurisdiction and the challenging party has taken part in the arbitral proceedings. In such a situation, the English Court will not allow a party challenging jurisdiction to make new grounds of challenge or bring in new evidence, unless it could not with reasonable diligence have been put before the tribunal. Moreover, any evidence that was before the tribunal would generally not be reheard by the English Court.
In its consultation paper, the Singapore Ministry of Law noted the recent changes to the UK position in this area by the UK Arbitration Act 2025 and the motivation behind those changes, namely that a de novo review engenders delay, increases/wastes costs and unfairly favours the challenging party. It thus seeks feedback on whether the Singapore Court’s review of an arbitral tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction should continue to be conducted by way of a de novo review.
A reform to the existing regime under Singapore’s IAA for jurisdictional challenges to the Singapore courts would be consistent with Singapore’s pro-arbitration stance. A limited form of review would hopefully reduce or deter clearly unmeritorious jurisdictional challenges and thus promote certainty and finality.
Issue 8: Summary disposal powers of tribunal
The IAA does not contain an express provision empowering the tribunal to issue an award on a summary basis. It was noted in the consultation paper that this was so even though the major institutional arbitral rules provide the tribunal with summary disposal powers in some form.
Prior to the UK Arbitration Act 2025, the UK Arbitration Act 1996 similarly did not contain an express provision empowering the tribunal to issue an award on a summary basis. The UK Arbitration Act 2025 now expressly provides that a tribunal has the power to summarily dispose of a claim, defence or an issue if there is no real prospect of success. This is non-mandatory and the parties can opt out.
The Singapore Ministry of Law is seeking feedback on whether the IAA should be amended to expressly provide that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal has the power to summarily dispose of any issue, claim or defence (or part thereof) in dispute by way of an award.
Notably, the consultation paper omitted to explicitly provide a threshold standard for the summary disposal unlike the UK Arbitration Act 2025, which is based on there being “no real prospect of success”. This is likely because the test of “no real prospect of success”’ appears to have a lower threshold than that provided in most major institutional arbitral rules providing for summary disposal. For example, the ICC Rules, SIAC Rules and LCIA Rules all expressly contain a mechanism for summary disposal based on a ‘manifestly without legal merit’ standard. As most parties would agree to subject their arbitration to such institutional rules, the (higher) standard as prescribed in the relevant institutional rules would apply instead. However, introducing a threshold standard for summary disposal in the IAA would be necessary in cases of ad hoc arbitrations.
Reforming the IAA to explicitly empower tribunals to issue an award on a summary basis may be a positive step towards allaying tribunal concerns regarding due process.
Comment
This latest consultation demonstrates Singapore’s continued support of international arbitration and its desire to evolve and modernise its legal framework in line with best international practices.