Singapore Court of Appeal Confirms It Cannot Review SIAC Procedural Decisions

<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> DMZ v DNA [2025] SGCA 52 – Strong Reaffirmation of Minimal Curial Intervention

<span class="news-text_medium">Court:</span> The Singapore Court of Appeal

<span class="news-text_medium">Date:</span> 14 November 2025

‍

The Singapore Court of Appeal has reaffirmed that courts have no power to review the procedural decisions of arbitral institutions, including decisions made by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“<span class="news-text_medium">SIAC</span>”) Registrar. In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">DMZ v DNA [2025] SGCA 52</span>, the Court confirmed that procedural matters governed by the parties’ chosen arbitral rules fall squarely within the arbitral framework and outside its supervisory jurisdiction. This decision underscores Singapore’s longstanding commitment to minimal curial intervention and clarifies the limits of the Court’s powers under the International Arbitration Act (“<span class="news-text_medium">IAA</span>”) and the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Background

The dispute arose from five contracts between DMZ and DNA, all providing for arbitration under the SIAC Rules. DNA filed a Notice of Arbitration shortly before the expiry of the relevant limitation periods. After reviewing submissions, the SIAC Registrar amended the commencement date of the arbitration so that it fell within time.

DMZ challenged the Registrar’s amended commencement date, arguing that the decision was time-barred and ultra vires. It applied to the Singapore High Court for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to set aside the amended decision. The High Court dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. DMZ appealed.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s ruling and confirmed that the Singapore courts cannot review SIAC procedural decisions.

1. <span class="news-text_medium">Article 5 of the Model Law limits the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction</span></br>
   The Court reaffirmed that no judicial intervention is permitted in matters governed by the Model Law except where expressly authorised. Procedural matters—such as the commencement of arbitration—are governed by section 15A of the IAA and Article 19(2) of the Model Law, which require parties to follow their agreed rules or, failing agreement, the procedural directions of the tribunal or arbitral institution.</br>
   Because the SIAC Rules expressly empower the Registrar to determine the commencement date and because the IAA contains no provision permitting judicial review of such decisions, the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to intervene.
2. <span class="news-text_medium">SIAC Rule 40.2 waives review of Registrar decisions</span></br>
   The Court further held that SIAC Rule 40.2 bars parties from seeking judicial review of Registrar decisions (except for arbitrator challenges or jurisdictional rulings). DMZ argued this was an unlawful ouster of judicial power, but the Court disagreed. Rule 40.2 simply postpones review: parties may still raise such issues at the post-award stage, for example in setting-aside or enforcement proceedings.
3. <span class="news-text_medium">Clarification of the Sun Travels decision</span></br>
   The Court addressed its earlier ruling in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Sun Travels & Tours v Hilton</span>. It clarified that <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Sun Travels</span> did not contravene Article 5 because the court’s declaratory relief there concerned a dispute after the arbitration had concluded, not an attempt to interfere in ongoing arbitral proceedings. <span class="news-text_italic-underline">DMZ v DNA</span> therefore aligns with <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Sun Travels</span> and reinforces the Model Law prohibition on mid-arbitration intervention.

Significance for Arbitration in Singapore

This judgment provides welcome certainty for users of Singapore arbitration. It confirms that:

• SIAC procedural decisions are final during the arbitral process and cannot be reviewed by the courts.
• Parties must follow the procedural framework they agreed, including the SIAC Rules.
• The Singapore courts remain committed to the principle of non-intervention, intervening only where expressly permitted under the IAA or Model Law.

For practitioners and users, the decision strengthens Singapore’s reputation as a trusted, arbitration-friendly jurisdiction with predictable limits on curial oversight.