Arbitral Tribunal | Belgravia Law

In Singapore, the process of appointing and managing arbitrators in arbitration proceedings is governed by the International Arbitration Act (“IAA”) and the Arbitration Act (“AA”). These legislative frameworks provide flexibility for parties to determine the qualifications, number and appointment procedures for arbitrators, ensuring that arbitrations are conducted efficiently and impartially. Understanding the procedural aspects of arbitral tribunals, including the qualifications required, the process of appointment and the ability to challenge an arbitrator, is crucial for parties involved in international arbitration. This article explores the key aspects of arbitral tribunals in Singapore, including the qualifications required, the process of appointment, the rights to challenge an arbitrator and the procedural powers granted to tribunals.

Qualifications Required & Number of Arbitrators

Singapore law does not set specific qualifications for arbitrators. However, parties are free to define any qualifications they require, such as professional credentials, expertise, or nationality. Parties have the flexibility to agree on the number of arbitrators. In the absence of an agreement, the arbitration will proceed with a sole arbitrator (section 9, IAA).

Appointment

The parties can agree on the process for appointing arbitrators. If no agreement is made:

for a sole arbitrator, if the parties cannot reach an agreement on a sole arbitrator, the President of the Court of Arbitration of the SIAC will appoint the arbitrator upon request (Article 11(3), Model Law and section 8(2), IAA).
in cases involving three arbitrators, each party appoints one arbitrator and they together select the third. If no agreement is reached on the third arbitrator within 30 days of the initial request, the President of the Court of Arbitration of the SIAC will appoint the third arbitrator (sections 2(1), 8(2) and 9A, IAA).
for arbitrations with three or more parties, the claimant (or all claimants together) appoints one arbitrator, the respondent (or all respondents together) appoints another and the two appointed arbitrators jointly select the presiding arbitrator. If the parties fail to appoint the third arbitrator within the prescribed time, the President of the Court of Arbitration of the SIAC will appoint all three arbitrators, designating the presiding arbitrator upon request (section 9B, IAA).

In making appointments, the President will consider:

any qualifications required by the parties;
ensuring the appointment of an independent and impartial tribunal; and
the advisability of appointing an arbitrator of a nationality different from the parties' (Article 11(5), Model Law).

Challenges to Arbitrators

An arbitrator can only be challenged in two circumstances:

if the arbitrator does not meet the qualifications agreed upon by the parties; or
if there are grounds for justifiable doubts about the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence (Article 12, Model Law).

In DLS v DLT [2025] SGHC 61, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that an arbitrator should be disqualified if circumstances give rise to a reasonable concern that the tribunal may be biased, potentially undermining the fairness of the hearing. In this case, the challenge was based on the arbitrator's failure to disclose a previous appointment in an unrelated arbitration. The Court clarified that non-disclosure alone is not grounds for disqualification unless it creates apparent bias, even if the omission was intentional.

Parties can agree on how to challenge an arbitrator. If no such agreement exists:

a party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a written statement outlining the reasons for the challenge within 15 days of becoming aware of the arbitrator's appointment or the circumstances prompting the challenge;
the tribunal will decide on the challenge unless the arbitrator withdraws or the other party agrees to the challenge; and
if the challenge is unsuccessful, the challenging party may request the Singapore High Court to review it within 30 days. Article 13, Model Law and section 8(1), IAA indicate that the court’s decision on the challenge is final. However, during this period, the arbitration can continue and the tribunal, including the challenged arbitrator, may proceed with the proceedings and issue an award.

Arbitrators’ Procedural Powers

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a tribunal has the authority to order interim measures of protection (Article 17, Model Law). Under section 12(1) of the IAA, the tribunal can issue procedural orders, including:

security for costs;
document discovery and fact disclosure;
evidence by affidavit;
preservation, interim custody, or sale of property related to the dispute;
sampling or observation of property relevant to the dispute;
preservation and interim custody of evidence;
securing the amount in dispute;
interim injunctions and other measures to prevent asset dissipation; and
enforcing confidentiality obligations.

The tribunal cannot require a claimant to provide security for costs solely due to the claimant's residence or incorporation outside Singapore (section 12(4), IAA). According to section 12(6), IAA, all tribunal orders are enforceable with the leave of the Singapore High Court, which can grant judgment in the same manner as a court order. For example, in CXG and another v CXI and others [2023] SGHC 244, the Singapore High Court upheld a tribunal’s interim relief order in a Singapore-seated arbitration, rejecting arguments about the appropriate forum for enforcement.

Liability

Arbitrators are explicitly exempt from liability for negligence, mistakes in law, fact, or procedure (section 25, IAA).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the rules surrounding appointing and managing arbitrators in Singapore offer a flexible yet structured framework that allows for efficient dispute resolution. The provisions for appointing a sole or panel of arbitrators and the detailed process for challenging arbitrators ensure transparency and fairness throughout the arbitration process.

SIAC's commitment to maintaining an independent and impartial tribunal, along with its procedural powers, further strengthens the integrity of the arbitration process. As international arbitration continues to evolve, the provisions outlined in the IAA and AA provide the necessary legal foundation for resolving disputes efficiently while safeguarding the interests of all parties involved.