Singapore’s IAA, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, was first introduced on 1 January 1995. Over the years, the IAA has been subject to several revisions, most recently in 2020, aiming to maintain SIAC’s status as a global arbitration hub. To mark the 30th anniversary of the IAA, the Singapore Ministry of Law commissioned the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (“SIDRA”) to conduct a thorough review of the Act, making recommendations across eight key areas.
Following the release of SIDRA’s report in November 2024, the Ministry of Law sought feedback on these issues through a public consultation process which concluded on 2 May 2025. The Ministry of Law will now assess the feedback received before drafting any amendments to the IAA.
Key Proposed Reforms
Costs Following Successful Set-Aside
Similar to other arbitration centres, such as those in England and Hong Kong, the IAA does not explicitly provide courts the authority to award costs when an arbitral award is successfully set aside. The Report suggests amending the IAA to grant courts this power, enabling them to issue orders related to the costs of the proceedings.
Separate Costs Principles for Set-Aside Applications
The consultation explores whether the cost of an unsuccessful set-aside applications should be automatically awarded on an indemnity basis to deter delay tactics in the enforcement of arbitral awards. However, the Report does not recommend these changes, suggesting that indemnity costs should remain applicable only in exceptional cases.
Introduction of a Leave Requirement for Appeals
Currently, parties can appeal a High Court decision on setting aside an arbitral award as of right. The Report proposes the introduction of a leave requirement, which would serve to filter out frivolous appeals. However, this could potentially lengthen the post-award arbitration process.
Time Limit for Setting Aside Applications
The consultation seeks opinions on whether the current three-month deadline for filing set-aside applications, under Article 34(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, should be shortened, or if courts should have discretion to extend this time frame, especially in cases involving fraud or corruption. The Report supports keeping the three-month limit, while allowing courts discretion to extend the period in cases involving fraud or corruption.
Right of Appeal on Points of Law
The consultation examines whether a right of appeal on points of law should be introduced, aligning Singapore’s arbitration framework more closely with those of England and Hong Kong.
Governing Law of the Arbitration Agreement
The IAA does not provide a clear method for determining the governing law of arbitral agreements. The Report recommends introducing a default statutory rule: in the absence of an express provision, the law applicable to the arbitration agreement should follow the governing law of the main contract. This mirrors the current position under Singapore’s common law, which differs from the recent amendments in England, where the law of the seat of arbitration will be the default, as seen in the latest revisions to the English Arbitration Act.
Review of Tribunal’s Jurisdiction
The consultation seeks views on whether court reviews of a tribunal's jurisdiction should be conducted as an appeal or a rehearing and whether new evidence should be allowed. The Report recommends retaining the existing ‘de novo’ review standard by the courts.
Summary Disposal
Finally, the Report suggests an introduction of a provision in the IAA that explicitly grants arbitral tribunals the power to summarily dispose of matters in dispute. This would strengthen the ability of tribunals to dispose of cases expeditiously, a power already implied under many institutional rules.
Conclusion
The revision of the IAA comes at a time when other leading jurisdictions, including France, Germany, China and India are also reviewing their arbitration laws. Reforms have just concluded in the United Kingdom following a lengthy consultation process, with reforms to the English Arbitration Act being enacted in 2025. Switzerland also amended its arbitration law, the Swiss Private International Act, in 2021. As the competition among arbitration centres intensifies, regular reviews of national arbitration frameworks are seen as crucial, with the legal framework being a key consideration for businesses choosing an arbitration seat, alongside enforcement mechanisms and judicial reliability.