2025 Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)
Salient aspects of the 7th edition of Arbitration Rules issued by SIAC in 2025:
Streamlined Procedure and Expedited Procedure
- Introduction of a Streamlined Procedure for disputes below Singapore Dollar (SGD) 1 million where parties would not be allowed to produce documents or witnesses, and the award would be rendered within 90 days (Rule 13).
- The threshold for Expedited Procedure (award rendered within 6 months) has been enhanced to SGD 10 million (Rule 14).
- Impact: Faster resolution of disputes, lower costs, and more predictable timelines, which will benefit businesses with smaller claims or those with a need for rapid resolution.
Preliminary determination (Rule 46)
- Tribunals can now make binding decisions on key issues, legal or factual, provided it saves time and costs. The decision has to be made within 90 days.
- Impact: Encourages efficiency, reduces unnecessary litigation expenses, and enables parties to leverage the early disposal of important issues.
Enhancements to emergency arbitration procedure
- Emergency arbitrators can now be appointed before filing a Notice of Arbitration, and protective preliminary orders can be granted within 24 hours (Rule 12).
- Impact: Stronger enforcement of urgent relief, which will be helpful for businesses facing potential asset dissipation or contract breaches, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the matter of Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Ltd1 recognising emergency arbitral awards.
Coordinated proceedings (Rule 17)
- Allows coordinated management of multiple related arbitrations.
- Impact: Reduces conflicting outcomes, enhances efficiency, and lowers costs for companies with multi-contract disputes.
Disclosure of third-party funding (Rule 38)
- Parties must disclose if they have a third-party funder and its details.
- Impact: Increases transparency, reduces conflicts of interest, and ensures fair proceedings.
Information Security measures (Rule 61)
- The parties may propose measures to protect the information shared, stored, or processed during arbitration. Once approved, the Tribunal may impose sanctions or costs on the party not complying with such measures.
- Impact: Enhances data protection, mitigating risks of confidentiality breaches.
Security for costs and claims (Rules 48 & 49)
- Tribunals have been explicitly empowered to order parties to furnish security to ensure unhindered enforcement of awards.
- Impact: Protects businesses from financial risk when dealing with unreliable counterparties.
Extended timeline for award submission (Rule 53.2)
- Tribunals are now required to submit the draft award to the SIAC Secretariat within 90 days (instead of 45 days) from the date of completion of arguments.
- Impact: Allows tribunals more time to ensure well-reasoned awards while maintaining efficiency.
Inextricably linked disputes can be adjudicated along with the main 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
Manisha Gupta v. Rajinder Kumar
Delhi High Court | 2025 SCC OnLine Del 43
The Delhi High Court allowed ancillary disputes beyond the definition of 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act) to be included in a commercial suit if intrinsically linked to the principal dispute. Although the Supreme Court, in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd v. KS Infraspace LLP,2 held that the term 'commercial dispute' must be strictly construed to only cover transactions that are explicitly mentioned under its definition – in line with the purpose of the Act to facilitate the expeditious resolution of a class of litigation – the Delhi High Court's ruling carves out an exception. Since the principal dispute in the instant matter (partnership dispute) was explicitly covered under the Act and the interconnected transactions were essential to its resolution, such transactions, though not independently 'commercial disputes', would also be covered under the Act. Without diluting the Act's purpose, this decision prevents fragmentation and avoids conflicting outcomes that could arise if the interlinked disputes were adjudicated separately, ultimately streamlining commercial dispute resolution in line with the objective of the Act.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
Metal Industries, a partnership firm, was dissolved upon the death of one of its partners, Gopal Krishan Gupta.
Without settling accounts with Gopal's legal heir (his daughter, Manisha Gupta), the surviving partner, Rajinder Kumar (Defendant 1) set up a new firm on the same premises appropriating the inventory and funds from the dissolved firm, Metal Industries.
Manisha alleged unauthorised dealings with Metal Industries' assets and funds by Defendant 1, aided by other Defendants, including relatives, employees/accountants, debtors, and creditors (Defendants 2 to 17) of Metal Industries.
In this regard, Manisha Gupta filed a suit under the Act seeking rendition of accounts, injunction, partition, and recovery concerning her late father's 50% share in the dissolved firm.
The maintainability of the Suit was opposed by Defendants 2 to 17 (non-partners) since their respective transactions with Metal Industries were not covered by the definition of 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act.
DECISION OF THE COURT
The Court noted that though the dispute between Manisha and the surviving partner (Defendant 1) was admittedly covered by Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, the transactions between Metal Industries and the other Defendants were not.
Since the transaction between the creditors and the firm was commercial in nature as per Explanation II to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, despite not being covered by the definition of 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, the Suit was held maintainable against them.
Further, since the other Defendants also had direct privity with the partnership, having dealt with its funds and assets post-dissolution of Metal Industries, the legal heirs of the deceased partner have an undisputed right to seek verification of these transactions as they directly impact their share in the firm's assets.
Separating these claims into multiple proceedings would be inefficient, as the transactions were interconnected and required a comprehensive adjudication for the matter to be effectively resolved.
To read this Newsletter in full, please click here.
Footnotes
1. (2022) 1 SCC 209
2. (2020) 15 SCC 585
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
