Singapore continues to be a leading jurisdiction in the field of international arbitration, offering a robust legal framework for the resolution of cross-border disputes. Over the years, the Singapore courts have provided critical guidance on key issues within international arbitration, including the confidentiality of deliberations, the law governing arbitrability and the procedural dynamics between arbitration institutions and appointing authorities.
Recent case law further solidifies Singapore’s position as a global hub for arbitration by offering valuable insights on topics such as emergency interim relief, corporate restructuring and the interpretation of arbitration clauses. This article reviews some of the most notable decisions from Singapore’s courts, shedding light on how these rulings shape the arbitration landscape and offer clarity on complex issues in international arbitration.
Confidentiality of Deliberations
In CZT v CZU, the Singapore International Commercial Court ruled on the confidentiality of an arbitral tribunal’s deliberations, stating that such records are typically confidential. However, in rare cases, this confidentiality may be waived if the interests of justice outweigh the need to protect deliberative secrecy.
Determining Arbitrability
In Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings, the Singapore Court of Appeal clarified the law governing the arbitrability of disputes. The court introduced a new “composite” approach, which considers both the law governing the arbitration agreement and Singapore law to determine whether a dispute is arbitrable.
A non-anonymised ex parte worldwide freezing order in support of a foreign‑seated arbitration
Worldwide freezing orders can be a valuable tool in international disputes against a counterparty who has assets in different jurisdictions but may try to dissipate some or all of those assets before an arbitration can run its course.
In Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(I)3, the Singapore International Commercial Court provided useful guidance on when it would grant a worldwide freezing order in support of foreign-seated arbitration.
The Court considered that a number of factors together established a sufficient nexus with Singapore for the Singapore courts to grant the freezing order against the defendants: the first defendant was a Singapore-incorporated company; the second defendant was a Singapore citizen; and the defendants had substantial assets in Singapore.
It was also relevant that neither the ICC Rules nor New York law permitted the grant of an ex parte (i.e., without the participation of the respondent) worldwide freezing order, so the arbitral tribunal and New York courts could not grant the order. The Court thus considered its power to grant the order to be useful to plug the gap.
This aspect of the Court’s decision may have practical implications on arbitrations conducted under the SIAC Rules 2025, as those Rules provide for ex parte emergency relief. The Court’s reasoning raises the question of whether the availability of ex parte emergency relief for SIAC arbitrations would mean that the Singapore courts would be slower to grant ex parte injunctive relief for contracts providing for arbitration under the SIAC Rules 2025.
Arbitration could proceed despite moratorium from corporate restructuring proceedings
When a Singapore court recognises foreign corporate restructuring or reorganisation proceedings (in this case, Malaysian reorganisation proceedings), an automatic moratorium or “stay” arises, thereby preventing any litigation or arbitration proceedings from being brought against the company being reorganised. A “carve-out” order may nevertheless be granted, permitting an arbitration to proceed against the company by excepting - or “carving out” - the arbitration claimant from the moratorium.
In Sapura Fabrication Sdn Bhd v GAS [2025] SGCA 13, the Singapore Court of Appeal clarified the factors for determining whether to grant “carve-out" orders to permit arbitration proceedings to proceed against a foreign company undergoing restructuring proceedings.
The Court held that it would consider the nature and merits of the claim and prejudice to the creditors or to the orderly administration of the restructuring proceedings, among other factors. The Court would then balance the relevant interests.
In this case, the Court granted the carve-out because the complexity of the claims brought in the arbitration made the claims ill-suited to the proof of debt process in insolvency proceedings. Further, a significant passage of time had passed and the claims had still not been adjudicated.
The Relationship between Arbitration Institutions, Appointing Authorities and Arbitral Rules
In the case of Bovis Lend Lease Pte Ltd v Jay-Tech Marine & Projects Pte Ltd and Another, a dispute over a claim for the payment of a sum was brought to arbitration. The issue was whether the SIAC was the administrator and the arbitrator's appointer. The relevant arbitration clauses stated that unless agreed otherwise, the arbitrator was to be “appointed by the President of the Institute of Architects in Singapore (or such other body as carries on the functions of the Institute) or his nominee” and that the arbitrator must conduct the proceedings per the SIAC Rules.
The issue turned on contractual interpretation and the apparent conflict between the above two provisions based on their provisions. The defendant had submitted a notice of arbitration to the SIAC pursuant to the Domestic Rules and sought to have the arbitrator appointed by the SIAC under its institutional rules as the parties could not agree on an arbitrator. The plaintiff disputed that a domestic dispute necessarily meant that the reference to SIAC Rules was to its Domestic Rules or even that the dispute had to be administered by SIAC and an appointment made by the chairman of SIAC.
The judge held that “[i]t is in accordance with the principle of party autonomy that the parties were free to choose one body as their appointing authority and another body as their rules provider”, or “how their arbitral tribunal is to be constituted and how the arbitration proper is to be conducted”. Hence, she determined that even though the arbitration clause stated that the arbitrator must apply the SIAC Rules, the non-reference to which set of rules was applicable made it such that it was a matter for the arbitrator to decide which rules he would like to use once he had been appointed by the proper appointing authority.
The arbitrator must be appointed according to the parties’ agreement, which was joint appointment, the failure of which will lead to an appointment by the Singapore Institute of Architects. Also, the failure to mention the appointment of SIAC as the institution of choice meant that the parties did not agree to its selection at the point of drafting and hence an ad hoc arbitration must have been intended.
The Companies Act and the Standing to Arbitrate
In Kiyue Company Limited v Aquagen International Pte Ltd , the issue the court faced was whether the word “action” in section 216A(2) of the Companies Act included an “arbitration proceeding” so as to permit a minority shareholder complainant to bring an action in the name and on behalf of a company that is involved in arbitration proceedings. The court held that the Companies Act has clearly shown a discrimination between “action” and an “arbitration proceeding” under section 366(2)(a) and since words must be given a consistent meaning within the same statute, the word “action” is ordinarily a reference to proceedings commenced in court and not to arbitration (unless specifically legislated otherwise).
Although who exactly is a “party” to an arbitration agreement and thus eligible to participate in it, is not always clear, this case has clarified to some extent the matter in the context of the Companies Act. Legislative amendments will have to be made in order to permit a minority shareholder to intervene and participate in an arbitration to protect its interests, if Parliament decides that that should be the case.
Conclusion
The evolving body of case law in Singapore continues to provide invaluable guidance on a range of critical issues in international arbitration. From clarifying the confidentiality of tribunal deliberations to addressing the complexities of emergency interim relief and corporate restructuring, these recent decisions underscore Singapore's role as a leading global arbitration hub. The legal landscape in Singapore remains dynamic, with courts offering clarity and shaping the future of arbitration practice. As the international arbitration community looks to Singapore for guidance, these key rulings help ensure that arbitration remains a fair, efficient and effective means of resolving global disputes.