UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

Singapore has emerged as a global hub for international arbitration, thanks to its strategic location, robust legal framework and a thriving legal ecosystem, complemented by world-class institutions like the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). With arbitration laws closely aligned with the UNCITRAL Model Law, the country continues to take significant steps to enhance its international arbitration regime. In March 2025, the Ministry of Law launched a public consultation to gather input on how to better support users of the International Arbitration Act 1994.

At the forefront of this evolution is SIAC, renowned for its efficiency and innovative approach to dispute resolution. The year 2025 is set to be a landmark year for SIAC, with the appointment of its new Registrar, Vivekananda Neelakantan, the introduction of an updated suite of Arbitration Rules, and impressive statistics from the 2024 annual report. Notably, SIAC recorded its highest number of arbitrator appointments to date, with a remarkable 91% of new cases being international, alongside the highest requests for its expedited procedure.

In this exclusive interview for UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ Arbitration UK, Dr Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ UK, assisted by Jennifer Puntis from the arbitration team at UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ UK, engages with the SIAC Registrar, Vivekananda Neelakantan, to discuss SIAC’s new arbitration rules and share insights. The interview will be presented as a series of three separate blog posts, so stay tuned for what’s coming!

Vivek, it is a pleasure to have you with us. Congratulations on your new role as SIAC Registrar! How have your first few months as SIAC Registrar been, and what insights have you gained so far?

Thank you very much. It has been a fast-paced but incredibly rewarding start to the role for me.

I have the privilege of working with a team of 16 lawyers in the SIAC Secretariat who are very experienced with case administration. They are qualified in civil and common law systems and are qualified in and hail from a diverse range of jurisdictions. Together, we oversee a growing caseload across a wide range of jurisdictions, industries, and sectors. My remit really has been to ensure the continuation of a strong ethos of focus on quality case management, user friendliness, fairness in the conduct of the process, and efficiency in the administration of cases by the SIAC Secretariat, qualities for which we have been long known.

We are particularly pleased to now be administering cases under the SIAC Rules 2025 which came into force on 1 January 2025, and which have introduced a unique and innovative range of procedural tools.

I have also spent time travelling to meet with practitioners and users across different jurisdictions. We are very heartened to see that the new SIAC Rules 2025 have resonated well with the arbitration community, and the feedback we have received has been very positive.

Users from our established user bases around the world are experienced and sophisticated users of arbitration. In markets where arbitration was, perhaps, once less familiar as a mode of dispute resolution, there is now growing awareness and interest in leveraging arbitration to resolve cross-border disputes, particularly as parties grapple with the challenges posed by an increasingly uncertain geopolitical landscape.

Against this backdrop, SIAC is well-positioned to support our international users in both their domestic and cross-border disputes in navigating these shifting tides.

The changing global business and trade environment also underscore the importance of staying ahead of the curve and continuing to deliver arbitral services anchored in our core ethos of Efficiency, Excellence, and Enforceability—and this is precisely why the launch of our new SIAC Rules 2025 is timely.

Personally, it is my privilege to be entrusted with this important position and responsibility and to continue the traditions of case management that have been well-received and appreciated by our users over the years.

We are pleased to have you with us, Vivek. With that in mind, let us delve into the questions.

Inspiration and drives for change

1. What were the key driving forces behind the overhaul of the SIAC Rules 2025? How do these changes elevate SIAC’s status among the other contenders in the provision of international arbitration services?

The SIAC Rules 2025 mark SIAC’s first comprehensive revision since the 2016 SIAC Rules. Over the past eight years, SIAC has seen a steady increase in new case filings and growing use from diverse industries and jurisdictions. In 2024, we received 625 new cases from users from 72 different jurisdictions. Since 2016, SIAC has administered over 3,500 cases. The revisions to the rules reflect the deep experience derived from administering these cases at SIAC and were driven by extensive consultations with arbitration end users, practitioners, arbitrators, corporates, and other stakeholders, ensuring that the rules align with evolving business needs and international best practices.

We took the time to engage in a thorough process of consultation with our users and experts in international arbitration to develop and shape the new rules. Our aim was clear: to craft a set of rules that uphold and refine the fundamental tenets of arbitration viz, speed, flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and confidentiality.

Our forward-looking procedures and rule enhancements are guided by three core principles that we set out explicitly in our rules as the objectives to which everyone involved in the process ought to work towards (including tribunals and the institution itself):

a. fairness of the proceedings;

b. efficiency proportionate to the value and complexity of the dispute; and

c. enforceability of arbitral awards.

Since 2010, the SIAC Rules have provided a toolkit of efficiency tools and the SIAC Rules 2025 generously add to the list of options for users. Further, the rules include design tweaks to ease case administration and provide clarity to parties and arbitral tribunals on various procedural matters and tools at their disposal.

SIAC has consistently been at the forefront of procedural innovations within its rules, providing a range of options for parties and tribunals to achieve the aforementioned objectives. The SIAC Rules 2025 further showcase our commitment to innovating, with the introduction of new procedures such as the Streamlined Procedure and the Preliminary Protective Order mechanism, which are unique to SIAC.

At the same time, we have taken care to enhance and refine many procedures which have seen consistent use over the years including the Expedited Procedure, the Emergency Arbitrator mechanism, and the Early Dismissal mechanism.

Streamlined procedure

2. With the introduction of a notably swift track under the new rules (Rule 13 and Schedule 2), how do you anticipate these provisions will meet the varying needs of specific industries? Do you foresee an increase in usage within particular sectors and among stakeholders? What risks, if any, are parties willing to accept by opting for the streamlined or expedited procedure? For example, the Singapore Court of Appeal has recently set aside an arbitral award in a case that examined the balance between the desire for an expedited process and the arbitral tribunal’s duty to uphold procedural fairness in the context of an expedited, documents-only arbitration. The court found that the award was rendered in breach of natural justice, as the arbitrator acted on a mistaken belief that resulted in prejudice to the appellant.

Our Streamlined Procedure is designed to be applicable across different industries and types of contracts—targeting cases involving low value and low complexity disputes within those industries. The framework offers a fast-track option for cases involving claims of SGD 1 million or below, with an award to be rendered within three months of the tribunal’s constitution.

The tribunal’s fees and SIAC’s administrative fees are capped at 50% of the maximum amounts set out in our Schedule of Fees. While we are still in early days, I am happy to report that the Streamlined Procedure has already seen significant uptake amongst parties.

The Streamlined Procedure has been designed carefully to give parties and tribunals the confidence and procedural backing to dispense with procedural stages and steps such as document production and discovery, witness evidence, or even hearings, where they are not merited for the value and complexity of the dispute at hand. This is intended to provide access to a process that is proportionate on time and cost spent for parties considering the use of international arbitration for low value and low complexity claims, which may not otherwise be brought to a process such as arbitration.

The recent decision by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Wan Sern Metal Industries v Hua Tian Engineering was a reminder of the importance of natural justice being observed in the context of a documents-only process. There, an unpleaded issue had been raised belatedly in the applicant’s final written submissions. The implications of raising an unpleaded issue and the need for amendments have been dealt with by the Court in earlier cases which did not involve a documents-only arbitration. The Court took the opportunity to reiterate that the same rules apply to a documents only arbitration and that because of its nature, it would be prudent ‘for a tribunal to clarify the parties’ positions’. In other words, the Court underlined the importance of this aspect of natural justice even in documents-only arbitrations.

The Singapore courts have enforced awards which were made following an expedited procedure, such as in AQZ v ARA [2015] SGHC 49, BXS v BXT [2019] SGHC(I) 10, CIM v CIN [2021] SGHC 75 and Hunan Xiangzhong Mining Group Ltd v Oilive Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 43. The Singapore courts have also recognised that where a documents-only procedure is agreed on by parties, arbitrators may make determinations on that basis, in CBS v CBP [2021] SGCA 4 .

At SIAC, we recognise the need for balance between efficiency and procedural fairness.  We are mindful of the risks that may arise when parties opt for a streamlined or expedited procedure, particularly in cases conducted on a documents-only basis. We are, accordingly, careful in our appointment of arbitrators for cases conducted under the expedited and streamlined tracks.  We actively monitor the progress of cases on these tracks, drawing the tribunal’s attention to questions of procedure, timing, and parties’ agreements on procedure.

This is also why the Streamlined Procedure (in Schedule 2) explicitly recognises the power of the tribunal to conduct arbitrations on a documents-only basis after considering the views of the parties. Similarly, the Expedited Procedure (in Schedule 3) also explicitly recognises the power of the tribunal to conduct an arbitration on a documents-only basis unless a party requests a hearing.

The care taken in the appointment of arbitrators and monitoring the progress of the case is continued through to the award.  We review draft awards prior to issuance through our scrutiny process which is in turn guided by our SIAC Award Checklist (Checklist). On this, our Secretariat is tasked with scrutinising draft awards. We have to approve draft awards as to their form and also retain the ability to (and routinely) draw the tribunal’s attention to points of substance that might affect the overall integrity and enforceability of the award. To aid in this process, we have published the Checklist to assist our arbitrators in preparing their awards, while offering users a clear and transparent point of reference. In particular, it is stipulated in Item 22, Part E of the Checklist that the ‘award sets out all claims and requests for relief, and indicates the dispositive issues to be decided’.

Together, these safeguards give users the confidence to adopt streamlined and expedited procedures, knowing that procedural fairness and enforceability remain firmly at the core of what we do.

With over 1,000 applications for the Expedited Procedure handled and over 600 arbitrations conducted under the procedure since the procedure was introduced in 2010, we are able to draw on our accumulated experience in managing cases with tighter timelines. Even within shorter timeframes under the Streamlined Procedure, we remain committed to ensuring that both fairness and procedural efficiency are given due attention.

Emergency arbitrator enhancements

3. The newly introduced ex parte applications for protective preliminary orders were long advocated for by practitioners. How do you expect these changes to impact parties’ behaviour when seeking urgent relief, and what potential pitfalls might emerge from these shifts? Also, does the introduction of these orders reinforce the SIAC’s position as a ‘one stop shop’ for arbitration, given that parties may no longer need to rely on courts for without notice interim relief?

The introduction of Protective Preliminary Orders (PPOs) in the SIAC 2025 Rules marks an important step forward in addressing a long-standing need raised by practitioners and users. Effectively, PPOs allow parties to seek urgent relief on an ex parte basis, with the aim of preserving the status quo until the application for interim relief can be fully heard by the Emergency Arbitrator (EA).

PPOs are designed to serve a very specific and nuanced purpose: they are temporary, protective orders intended to prevent the frustration of the underlying interim relief and/or conservatory measures sought by the applicant. To that end, PPOs solve practical pain points—specifically in urgent situations where notifying the other party may precipitate a set of circumstances that render the interim relief sought ineffective.

The feedback we have received on the introduction of the mechanism has been positive as it offers an added layer of protection in urgent situations. As a point of reference, in 2024, SIAC received 21 Emergency Arbitrator applications, all of which were accepted. This brings the total number of EA applications accepted since the mechanism was first introduced in 2010 to 173.

While hearing the PPO application on an ex parte basis and granting such orders against the counterparties may naturally give rise to concerns around fairness, we have taken a measured and thoughtful approach in designing the PPO mechanism to address those concerns.

To minimise any potential prejudice, the applicant has a duty to notify the counterparties immediately upon a PPO being made, with the PPO expiring 3 days after it is made if the counterparties are not notified. The Emergency Arbitrator is also required to promptly deal with any objection from a counterparty to the PPO, and the PPO shall in any event expire within 14 days of it being made while the EA may adopt, modify, or vacate the PPO as appropriate after hearing all parties.

As to whether the introduction of PPOs makes SIAC a true ‘one-stop shop’ that might potentially ‘shake up’ the role of the national courts, we take a more measured position. The emergency arbitrator process and the added layer of the ability to secure PPOs are seen to complement rather than to displace court-ordered interim relief. The strategic decision to choose one or the other option is a fact sensitive one, depending often on issues such as the relevant jurisdictions where the parties are based, the need to maintain confidentiality of the dispute, and the overall impact of the determination of the request for interim relief on the main dispute between the parties. We know and expect that parties and counsel consider these factors carefully before adopting a particular course of action, and there is certainly no one size fits all approach.

Part 2 - arriving soon!

For more information on SIAC and its services, please visit and subscribe to their mailing list at:

For more information on Lexis+® UK Arbitration Practical Guidance, please visit