Our Rules

SIAC Rules 2007


Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC Rules 3rd Edition, 1 July 2007

1.1Where parties have agreed to refer their disputes to the SIAC for arbitration, the parties shall be deemed to have agreed that the arbitration shall be conducted and administered in accordance with these Rules. If any of these Rules is in conflict with a mandatory provision of the applicable law of the arbitration from which the parties cannot derogate, that provision shall prevail.

In these Rules -


"Award" means a decision of the Tribunal on the substance of the dispute and includes an interim, interlocutory, partial or final award.


"Centre" means the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, a company incorporated under the Companies Act of the Republic of Singapore as a company limited by guarantee;


"Chairman" means the Chairman of the Centre and includes the Deputy Chairman;


"Registrar" means the Registrar of the Centre and includes an Assistant Registrar;


"Summary award" means an award made pursuant to Article 3 of Schedule I;


"Tribunal" includes a sole arbitrator or all the arbitrators where more than one is appointed.

2.1 For the purposes of these Rules, any notice, communication or proposal, shall be in writing. Any such written communication may be delivered or sent by registered postal or courier service or transmitted by any form of electronic communication (including electronic mail, facsimile, telex) or delivered by any other means that provides a record of its delivery. It is deemed to have been received if it is delivered to the addressee personally or if it is delivered to his habitual residence, place of business or mailing address. If none of these can be found after making reasonable inquiry, then at the addressee's last-known residence or place of business.
2.2 The notice, communication, or proposal is deemed to have been received on the day it is delivered.
2.3 For the purposes of calculating any period of time under these Rules, such period shall begin to run on the day following the day when a notice, communication or proposal is received. If the last day of such period is an official holiday at the residence or place of business of the addressee, the period is extended until the first business day which follows. Official holidays occurring during the running of the period of time are included in calculating the period.
2.4 The parties shall file with the Registrar a copy of any notice, communication or proposal concerning the arbitral proceedings.
3.1 The party wishing to commence an arbitration (the "Claimant") shall file with the Registrar a Notice of Arbitration which shall include or be accompanied by the following:
a. a demand that the dispute be referred to arbitration;
b. the names, addresses, telephone number(s), facsimile number(s) and electronic mail address(es), if known, of the parties to the arbitration and their representatives, if any;
c. a reference to the arbitration clause or the separate arbitration agreement that is invoked and a copy of it;
d. a reference to the contract out of or in relation to which the dispute arises and where possible, a copy of it;
e. a brief statement describing the nature and circumstances of the dispute, specifying the relief claimed, and where possible a quantification of the claim amount;
f. a statement of any matters which the parties have previously agreed as to the conduct of the arbitration or with respect to which the Claimant wishes to make a proposal;
g. a confirmation that a copy of the Notice of Arbitration including all accompanying documents has been served or is being served on the other party (the "Respondent");
h. any comment as to the applicable rules of law;
i. any comment as to the language of the arbitration; and
j. payment of the requisite filing fee.
3.2 The Notice of Arbitration may also include:
a. the proposal for the number of arbitrator(s) if this is not specified in the arbitration agreement;
b. the nomination of arbitrator(s); and
c. the Statement of Case referred to in Rule 16.3.
3.3 The date of receipt of the Notice of Arbitration by the Registrar shall be deemed the date of commencement of the arbitration.

The Respondent shall send a Response within 14 days of receipt of the Notice of Arbitration which shall contain:

a.a confirmation or denial of all or part of the claims;
b.a brief statement of the nature, circumstances and quantification, if any, of any envisaged counterclaims; and
c.any comment in response to any statements contained in the Notice of Arbitration under Rule 3.1 (f) on matters relating to the conduct of the arbitration.

The Response may also include:

a.any comment to any proposal or nomination referred to in Rule 3.2(a) and (b); and
b.the nomination of an arbitrator.
4.3The Respondent shall send the Response to the Registrar and shall confirm that a copy has been served or is being served on the Claimant.
5.1 Unless the parties have agreed otherwise or unless it appears to the Registrar giving due regard to any proposals by the parties, the complexity, the quantum involved or other relevant circumstances of the dispute, that the dispute warrants the appointment of three arbitrators, a sole arbitrator shall be appointed.
5.2 If the parties have agreed that any arbitrator is to be appointed by one or more of the parties, or by any third person(s) including the arbitrators already appointed, that agreement shall be treated as an agreement to nominate an arbitrator under these Rules.
5.3 In all cases, the candidates nominated by the parties, or by any third person(s) including the arbitrators already appointed, shall be subject to confirmation by the Chairman.
5.4 The terms of appointment of the arbitrator(s) shall be fixed by the Registrar in accordance with these Rules and Practice Notes for the time being in force.
5.5 In all cases, an arbitrator shall not be deemed appointed until confirmed by the Chairman. The Chairman shall confirm an arbitrator as soon as practicable.
6.1 If a sole arbitrator is to be appointed, either party may propose to the other the names of one or more persons, one of whom would serve as the sole arbitrator. Where parties have reached an agreement on the nomination of a sole arbitrator, Rule 5.3 shall apply.
6.2 If within 21 days after receipt by the Registrar of the Notice of Arbitration made in accordance with Rule 3, the parties have not reached an agreement on the nomination of a sole arbitrator, the Chairman shall make the appointment as soon as practicable.
6.3 A decision of the Chairman under this Rule shall not be subject to appeal.
7.1If three arbitrators are to be appointed, each party shall nominate one arbitrator.
7.2If a party fails to make a nomination within 21 days after receipt of a party’s nomination of an arbitrator, the Chairman shall proceed to appoint the arbitrator on its behalf.
7.3Unless the parties have agreed upon another procedure for appointing the third arbitrator, the third arbitrator who shall act as the presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the Chairman. Any nomination made pursuant to the procedure agreed to by the parties shall be subject to confirmation pursuant to Rule 5.3.
7.4A decision of the Chairman under this Rule shall not be subject to appeal.
8.1Where there are more than 2 parties in the arbitration, the parties may agree on the procedure for appointment. Any nomination made pursuant to the procedure agreed to by the parties shall be subject to confirmation pursuant to Rule 5.3.
8.2If the parties are unable to agree on the procedure for appointment of arbitrators within 21 days of receipt of the Notice of Arbitration, or if the agreed procedure fails, the arbitrator(s) shall be appointed by the Chairman as soon as practicable.
8.3A decision of the Chairman under this Rule shall not be subject to appeal.
9.1In confirming or making an appointment under these Rules, the Chairman shall have due regard to any qualifications required of the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties and to such considerations as are likely to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator.
9.2A prospective arbitrator shall disclose to those who approach him in connection with his possible nomination, any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence.
9.3An arbitrator, once appointed, shall disclose any such circumstance referred to in Rule 9.2 above to all parties, not already been informed by him, of these circumstances. Any arbitrator, whether or not nominated by the parties, conducting an arbitration under these Rules shall be and remain at all times independent and impartial, and shall not act as advocate for any party.
10.1Any arbitrator may be challenged if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator's impartiality or independence.
10.2A party may challenge the arbitrator nominated by him only for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made.
11.1A party who intends to challenge an arbitrator shall send a notice of challenge within 14 days after the receipt of the notice of appointment of the arbitrator who is being challenged or within 14 days after the circumstances mentioned in Rule 10.1 or 10.2 became known to that party.
11.2The notice of challenge shall be filed with the Registrar and shall be sent simultaneously to the other party, the arbitrator who is being challenged and the other members of the Tribunal. The notice of challenge shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the challenge. The Registrar may order a suspension of the arbitration until the challenge is resolved.
11.3When an arbitrator is challenged by one party, the other party may agree to the challenge. The challenged arbitrator may also withdraw from his office. In neither case does this imply acceptance of the validity of the grounds for the challenge.
11.4In instances referred to in Rule 11.3, the procedure provided in Rule 5 and Rules 6, 7 or 8 as the case may be shall be used for the appointment of the substitute arbitrator, even if during the process of appointing the challenged arbitrator, a party had failed to exercise his right to nominate. The time-limit provided in those Rules shall commence from the date of receipt of the other party’s agreement to the challenge or the challenged arbitrator’s withdrawal.
12.1If the other party does not agree to the challenge and the arbitrator who is being challenged does not withdraw voluntarily within 7 days of receipt of the notice of challenge, the Chairman shall decide on the challenge.
12.2If the Chairman sustains the challenge, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the procedure provided in Rule 5 and Rules 6, 7 or 8 as the case may be, even if during the process of appointing the challenged arbitrator, a party had failed to exercise his right to nominate. The time-limit provided in those Rules shall commence from the date of the Chairman’s decision.
12.3If the Chairman dismisses the challenge, the arbitrator shall continue with the arbitration.
12.4The Chairman may fix the costs of the challenge and may direct who and how such costs should be borne.
12.5The Chairman’s decision made under this Rule shall not be subject to appeal.
13.1In the event of the death or resignation of an arbitrator during the course of the arbitral proceedings, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the procedure applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced.
13.2In the event that an arbitrator refuses or fails to act or in the event of thede jure or de facto impossibility of him performing his functions, the procedure for challenge and replacement of an arbitrator provided in Rules 10 to 12 and 13.1 shall apply.
14.1If under Rules 11 to 13 the sole or presiding arbitrator is replaced, any hearings held previously shall be repeated unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. If any other arbitrator is replaced, such prior hearings may be repeated at the discretion of the Tribunal.
15.1The parties may agree on the arbitral procedure.
15.2In the absence of procedural rules agreed by the parties or contained in these Rules, the Tribunal shall conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate to ensure the fair, expeditious, economical and final determination of the dispute.
15.3A presiding arbitrator may, after consulting the other arbitrator(s), make procedural rulings alone.
16.1Unless the parties have agreed otherwise under Rule 15 or the Tribunal determines otherwise, the submission of written statements and documents shall proceed as set out in this Rule.
16.2Copies of all written statements referred to in this Rule shall be sent simultaneously to the Tribunal and the Registrar.
16.3The Claimant shall, if it has not done so, send to the Respondent a Statement of Case setting out in full detail the facts and any contention of law on which it relies, and the relief claimed together with the amount of all quantifiable claims within 30 days of receipt of notice from the Registrar that the Tribunal has been constituted.

The Respondent shall send to the Claimant a Statement of Defence stating in full detail which of the facts and contentions of law in the Statement of Case it admits or denies, on what grounds, and on what other facts and contentions of law it relies. The Statement of Defence shall be submitted within:

a.30 days of receipt of the Statement of Case; or
b.30 days of receipt of notice from the Registrar that the Tribunal has been constituted where the Statement of Case was submitted with the Notice of Arbitration.
16.5Any counterclaims shall be submitted with the Statement of Defence.
16.6The Tribunal shall decide which further written statements, in addition to the Statement of Case and the Statement of Defence, shall be required from the parties or may be presented by them. The Tribunal shall fix the periods of time for communicating such statements.
16.7The periods of time fixed by the Tribunal for the submission of written statements shall not exceed 45 days. However the Tribunal may extend the time limits on such terms as it deems appropriate.
16.8All written statements referred to in this Rule shall be accompanied by copies of all supporting documents which have not previously been submitted by any party.
16.9If the Claimant fails within the time specified under these Rules or as may be fixed by the Tribunal, to submit its Statement of Case, the Tribunal may issue an order for the termination of the arbitral proceedings or make such other directions as may be appropriate.
16.10If the Respondent fails to submit a Statement of Defence, or if at any point any party fails to avail itself of the opportunity to present its case in the manner directed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal may proceed with the arbitration.
17.1Within 45 days following completion of the submission of the written statements specified in Rule 16, the Tribunal shall on the basis of the parties’ written statements and in consultation with the parties proceed to draw up a document defining the issues to be determined by the Tribunal in the arbitration (“Memorandum of Issues”).
17.2The Memorandum of Issues shall be signed by the parties and the Tribunal. At the request of the Tribunal, the Registrar may extend the time for the completion of the Memorandum of Issues.
17.3If any party refuses to participate in drawing up of the Memorandum of Issues or to sign the same, the Tribunal shall submit the same to the Registrar for approval.
17.4The Memorandum of Issues when signed by the parties and the Tribunal or when approved by the Registrar defines the issues that the Tribunal shall decide in its award.
18.1The parties may agree on the seat of arbitration. Failing such an agreement, the seat of arbitration shall be Singapore , unless the Registrar determines having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that another seat is more appropriate.
18.2The Tribunal may hold hearings and meetings by any means it considers expedient or appropriate and at any location it considers convenient or appropriate.
19.1Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the Tribunal shall determine the language(s) to be used in the proceedings.
19.2If a document is drawn up in a language other than the language(s) of the arbitration, the Tribunal, or if the Tribunal has not been established, the Registrar, may order that party to submit a translation in a form to be determined by the Tribunal or the Registrar.
20.1Any party may be represented by legal practitioners or any other representatives, subject to such proof of authority as the Registrar or the Tribunal may require.
21.1Unless the parties have agreed on documents-only arbitration, the Tribunal shall, if either party so requests, hold a hearing for the presentation of evidence or for oral submissions.
22.2The Tribunal shall fix the date, time and place of any meeting and hearing in the arbitration and shall give the parties reasonable notice.
22.3If any party to the proceedings fails to appear at a hearing without showing sufficient cause for such failure, the Tribunal may proceed with the arbitration and may make the award based on the submissions and evidence before it.
22.4Unless the parties agree otherwise, all meetings and hearings shall be in private.
22.5The Tribunal may declare the hearings closed if it is satisfied that the parties have no further evidence to produce or submissions to make. The Tribunal may on its own motion or upon application of a party but before any award is made, reopen the hearings.
22.6All statements, documents or other information supplied to the Tribunal by one party shall simultaneously be communicated to the other party and the Registrar. Any expert report or evidentiary document on which the Tribunal may rely in making its decision shall be communicated to the parties and the Registrar.
22.1 Before any hearing, the Tribunal may require any party to give notice of the identity of witnesses, the subject matter of their testimony and its relevance to the issues.
22.2 The Tribunal has discretion to allow, refuse or limit the appearance of witnesses.
22.3 Any witness who gives oral evidence may be questioned by each of the parties, their representatives or the Tribunal.
22.4 The Tribunal may direct the testimony of witnesses to be presented in written form, either as signed statements or sworn affidavits or any other form of recording. Subject to Rule 22.2, any party may request that such a witness should attend for oral examination. If the witness fails to attend, the Tribunal may place such weight on the written testimony as it thinks fit, disregard it or exclude it altogether.
22.5 Subject to the mandatory provisions of any applicable law, it shall be proper for any party or its representatives to interview any witness or potential witness prior to his appearance at any hearing.
23.1 Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the Tribunal:
a. may following consultation with the parties, appoint expert(s) to report on specific issues;
b. may following consultation with the parties, appoint expert(s) to report on specific issues;
23.2 Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, if a party so requests or if the Tribunal considers it necessary, any expert shall, after delivery of his written or oral report, participate in a hearing. At the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to question him and may also present its own expert witness(es).
24.1 In addition and not in derogation of the powers conferred by any applicable law of the arbitration, the Tribunal shall have the power to:
a. order the correction of any contract or arbitration agreement, but only to the extent required to rectify any mistake which it determines to have been made by all the parties to that contract or arbitration agreement;
b. allow other parties to be joined in the arbitration with their express consent, and make a single final award determining all disputes among the parties to the arbitration;
c. allow any party, upon such terms (as to costs and otherwise) as it shall determine, to amend the claims, counterclaims, memorandum of issues or other submissions;
d. except as provided in Rules 17.2, 27.1 and 28.4, extend or abbreviate any time limits provided by these Rules or by its directions;
e. conduct such enquiries as may appear to the Tribunal to be necessary or expedient;
f. order the parties to make any property or item available, for inspection in the parties’ presence, by the Tribunal or any expert;
g. order the preservation, storage, sale or disposal of any property or item which is or forms part of the subject-matter of the dispute;
h. order any party to produce to the Tribunal and to the other parties for inspection, and to supply copies of any document(s) in their possession or control which the Tribunal considers relevant;
i. make orders or give directions to any party for interrogatories;
j. order an interim injunction or any other interim measure;
k. direct any party to give evidence by affidavit or any other form of recording;
l. direct any party to ensure that any award which may be made in the arbitral proceedings is not rendered ineffectual by the dissipation of assets by a party;
m. order any party to provide security for legal or other costs in any manner the Tribunal thinks fit;
n. order any party to provide security for all or part of any amount in dispute in the arbitration;
o. proceed with the arbitration notwithstanding the failure or refusal of any party to comply with these Rules, or with the Tribunal's orders or directions or to attend any meeting or hearing, and to impose such sanctions as the Tribunal deems appropriate; and
p. determine any question of law arising in the arbitration and receive and take into account such written or oral evidence as it shall determine to be relevant, whether or not strictly admissible in law.
25.1The Tribunal shall have the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, termination or validity of the arbitration agreement. For that purpose, an arbitration agreement which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. A decision by the Tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration agreement.
25.2A plea that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be raised not later than in the Statement of Defence. A plea that the Tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority shall be raised promptly after the Tribunal has indicated its intention to decide on the matter alleged to be beyond the scope of its authority. In either case the Tribunal may nevertheless admit a late plea under this Rule if it considers the delay justified. A party is not precluded from raising such a plea by the fact that he has nominated, or participated in the nomination of an arbitrator.
25.3The Tribunal may rule on a plea referred to in Rule 25.2 either as a preliminary question or in an award on the merits.
26.1 The Tribunal’s fees and the Centre’s fees shall be ascertained in accordance with the Schedule of Fees in force at the time of commencement of the arbitration.
26.2 The Registrar shall fix the advances or deposits on costs of the arbitration to cover the fees and expenses of the Tribunal and the Centre. Unless the Registrar directs otherwise, such advances and deposits shall be payable by the parties in equal shares.
26.3 Where the amount of the claim or the counterclaim is not quantifiable at the time payment is due, a provisional estimate of the costs of the arbitration shall be made by the Registrar. This may be adjusted in light of such information as may subsequently become available.
26.4 The Registrar may from time to time direct parties to make further advances or deposits towards costs or expenses of the arbitration incurred or to be incurred on behalf of or for the benefit of the parties.
26.5 If a party fails to make the advances or deposits directed, the Tribunal may, following consultation with the Registrar, refuse to hear the claims or counterclaims, whichever is applicable, by the non-complying party, although it may proceed to determine the claims or counterclaims by any party who has complied with orders.
26.6 If the arbitration is settled or disposed of without a hearing, the costs of arbitration shall be finally determined by the Registrar. The Registrar shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the stage of proceedings at which the arbitration is settled or disposed of. In the event that the costs of arbitration determined are less than the deposits made, there shall be a refund in such proportions as the parties may agree, or failing an agreement, in the same proportions as the deposits were made.
26.7 Parties are jointly and severally liable for the costs of the arbitration. Any party is free to pay the whole of the advances or deposits on costs of the arbitration in respect of the claim or the counterclaim should the other party fail to pay its share. The Tribunal may, in consultation with the Registrar suspend its work should the advances or deposits directed under this Rule remain either wholly or in part unpaid.
26.8 All advances and deposits shall be made to and held by the Centre. Any interest which may accrue on such deposit(s) shall be retained by the Centre.
27.1 Before issuing any award, the Tribunal shall submit it in draft form to the Registrar. Unless the Registrar extends time or the parties agree otherwise, the Tribunal shall submit the draft award to the Registrar within 45 days from the date on which the Tribunal declares the proceedings closed. The Registrar may suggest modifications as to the form of the award and, without affecting the Tribunal's liberty of decision, may also draw its attention to points of substance. No award shall be issued by the Tribunal until it has been approved by the Registrar as to its form.
27.2 The Tribunal may make separate awards on different issues at different times.
27.3 If any arbitrator refuses or fails to comply with the mandatory provisions of any applicable law relating to the making of the award, having been given a reasonable opportunity to do so, the remaining arbitrator(s) shall proceed in his absence.
27.4 Where there is more than one arbitrator, the Tribunal shall decide by a majority. Failing a majority decision, the presiding arbitrator shall make the award alone as if he were a sole arbitrator. If an arbitrator refuses or fails to sign the award, the signatures of the majority shall be sufficient, provided that the reason for the omitted signature is stated.
27.5 The award shall be delivered to the Registrar, who shall transmit certified copies to the parties upon the full settlement of the costs of arbitration.
27.6 The Tribunal may award simple or compound interest on any sum which is the subject of the arbitration at such rates as the parties may have agreed or, in the absence of such agreement, as the Tribunal determines to be appropriate, in respect of any period which the Tribunal determines to be appropriate ending not later than the date of the award.
27.7 In the event of a settlement, if any party so requests, the Tribunal may render a consent award recording the settlement. If the parties do not require a consent award, the parties shall confirm to the Registrar that a settlement has been reached. The Tribunal shall be discharged and the arbitration concluded upon payment of any outstanding costs of arbitration.
27.8 By agreeing to arbitration under these Rules, the parties undertake to carry out the award without delay. An award shall be final and binding on the parties from the date it is made.
28.1 Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a party may by written notice to the Registrar request the Tribunal to correct in the award any error in computation, any clerical or typographical error or any error of a similar nature. If the Tribunal considers the request to be justified, it shall make the correction(s) within 30 days of receipt of the request. Any correction, made in the original award or in a separate memorandum, shall constitute part of the award.
28.2 The Tribunal may correct any error of the type referred to in this Rule on its own initiative within 30 days of the date of the award.
28.3 Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a party may by notice to the Registrar and the other party, request the Tribunal to make an additional award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but not dealt with in the award. If the Tribunal considers the request to be justified, it shall make the additional award within 45 days of receipt of the request.
28.4 The Registrar may extend the time limits in this Rule.
28.5 The provisions of Rule 27 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the same manner in relation to a correction of an award and to any additional award made.
29.1 The Tribunal shall specify in the award, the total amount of the costs of the arbitration. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the Tribunal shall determine in the award the apportionment of the costs of arbitration among the parties.
29.2 The term "costs of the arbitration" includes:
a. the Tribunal’s fees and expenses;
b. the Centre’s administrative fees and expenses; and
c. the costs of expert advice and of other assistance required by the Tribunal.
30.1 The fees of the Tribunal shall be fixed by the Registrar in accordance with the Schedule of Fees and the stage of the proceedings. In exceptional circumstances, the Registrar may allow an additional fee over that prescribed in the Schedule of Fees to be paid.
30.2 The Tribunal’s reasonable out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred and other allowances shall be reimbursed in accordance with the Practice Notes for the time being in force.
31.1The Tribunal shall have the authority to order in its award that all or a part of the legal or other costs of a party (apart from the costs of the arbitration) be paid by another party.
31.2The costs referred to in Rule 31.1 shall, unless the award otherwise directs, be taxable by the Registrar.
31.3A certificate signed by the Registrar on the amount of costs shall form part of the award.
32.1Where the seat of arbitration is Singapore , the law of the arbitration under these Rules shall be the International Arbitration Act (Chapter 143A, 2002 Ed, Statutes of the Republic of Singapore ) or its modification or re-enactment thereof.

The Centre including its officers, employees or agents, or any arbitrator shall not be liable for:

a.negligence for anything done or omitted to be done in connection with any arbitration conducted under these Rules; and
b.any mistake in law, fact or procedure made in the course of arbitral proceedings or in the making of an award.
33.2The Centre including its officers, employees or agents, or any arbitrator shall not be under any obligation to make any statement to any person about any matter concerning the arbitration. No party shall seek to make any officer, employee or agent of the Centre, or any arbitrator, a witness in any legal proceedings arising out of the arbitration whether before, during or after the arbitration.
3.1The parties and the Tribunal shall at all times treat all matters relating to the proceedings, and the award as confidential.

A party or any arbitrator shall not, without the prior written consent of all the parties, disclose to a third party any such matter except:

a.for the purpose of making an application to any competent court of any State under the applicable law governing the arbitration;
b.for the purpose of making an application to the courts of any State to enforce or challenge the award;
c.pursuant to the order of or a subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction;
d.to a party’s legal or other professional advisor for the purpose of pursuing or enforcing a legal right or claim;
e.in compliance with the provisions of the laws of any State which is binding on the party making the disclosure; or
f.in compliance with the request or requirement of any regulatory body or other authority.
34.3In this Rule, “matters relating to the proceedings” means the existence of the proceedings, and the pleadings, evidence and other materials in the arbitration proceedings created for the purpose of the arbitration and all other documents produced by another party in the proceedings or the award arising from the proceedings but excludes any matter that is otherwise in the public domain.


35.1A party who knows that any provision or requirement under these Rules has not been complied with and proceeds with the arbitration without promptly stating its objection shall be deemed to have waived its right to object.
35.2The provisions in these Rules shall insofar as they relate to the powers and functions of the Tribunal be interpreted by the Tribunal. All other provisions shall be interpreted by the Registrar.
35.3In all matters not expressly provided for in these Rules, the Chairman, the Registrar and the Tribunal shall act in the spirit of these Rules and shall make every reasonable effort to ensure the fair, expeditious and economical conclusion of the arbitration and the enforceability of the award.
35.4The Registrar may from time to time issue Practice Notes to supplement, regulate and implement these Rules for the purpose of facilitating the administration of arbitrations governed by these Rules.

Article 1 – Repeal

The Domestic Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, 2nd Edition, 1 September 2002 (SIAC Domestic Arbitration Rules) shall cease to apply to arbitrations administered by the Centre.

Article 2 – Transitional Provision

1. Where parties have by agreement expressly referred to arbitration under the SIAC Domestic Arbitration Rules, the agreement shall be deemed to be a reference to arbitration under these Rules and to this Schedule.

2. Notwithstanding Rule 32, the law of the arbitration to which this Schedule applies shall be the Arbitration Act (Chapter 10, 2002 Ed, Statutes of the Republic of Singapore ) or its modification or re-enactment thereof.


Article 3 – Summary Award

1. Upon the expiry of the time limit for the filing of all case statements under Rule 16 of these Rules, but not later than 21 days after the expiry, if a party considers that there is no valid defence to its claim or any substantial part of its claim, it may file with the Tribunal and serve on the other party and the Registrar an application for a summary award on the claim or part of the claim. “Claim” in this Article includes a counterclaim.

2. The application shall be accompanied by affidavit(s) stating the full facts and detailed grounds in support of it.

3. Within 21 days after service of the application and affidavit(s), the other party must, if it wishes to contest the application, file and serve affidavit(s) in opposition. The applicant must file any reply affidavit(s) within 14 days from receipt of the opposition. No further affidavit may be filed without leave of the Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal may on hearing the application:
a. make an award summarily; or
b. make an order dismissing the application; or
c. make an order requiring security for the applicant’s claim or part of the claim.

5. The Tribunal’s award or order shall be made in writing within 21 days after close of hearing unless extended by the Registrar.

6. Costs referred to in Rules 29, 30 and 31 of these Rules may be awarded in the discretion of the Tribunal.

7. Rules 27.1, 28.1 and 28.2 of these Rules shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to a summary award made under this Article.

8. Where the application is dismissed, the Tribunal shall proceed to draw up the Memorandum of Issues under Rule 17 of these Rules and continue with the arbitration.


Fill up the form to subscribe


Vijayendra Pratap Singh is a Senior Partner and Head (Dispute Resolution) at AZB & Partners, Delhi. Vijayendra has spearheaded various arbitrations concerning shareholder agreements, option contracts, long term supply (including restitution claims on account of cancellation of coal blocks), confidentiality, franchising and intellectual property issues. The arbitrations are both ad hoc as well as institutional and seated across multiple jurisdictions. He represented SIAC in the BALCO case before the Supreme Court on the scope and extent of judicial intervention of Indian courts with foreign seated arbitrations. He presently represents Amazon in the much publicised dispute with Future Retail Limited which recognized the enforceability of a SIAC emergency arbitrator award in India. 

Vijayendra is listed in various legal directories such as Chambers & Partners and Legal 500. He has been named as the Dispute Resolution Star of the Year by Benchmark Litigation Asia Pacific and has been named in the Global Arbitration Review. He has been involved with capacity building initiatives in the field of arbitration and is a visiting faculty at various Universities and Institutions. He has also appeared before Parliamentary committees looking at various laws, including India’s Model Bilateral Investment Treaty.


Dexter graduated with a LL.B. (Hons) from the National University of Singapore. He is admitted to practice as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Prior to joining SIAC, Dexter trained with a boutique law firm in Singapore which specialises in corporate and commercial law.

Dexter is fluent in English and Madarin.

Email: [email protected]



Pierre Bienvenu, Ad. E. is a disputes lawyer with more than 35 years’ experience practising in international commercial arbitration, commercial litigation, and constitutional law. He has acted as counsel or served as arbitrator in international arbitrations involving disputes in telecommunications, transportation, energy, international distribution and joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, construction, pharmaceuticals, and foreign investment.

A former co-chair of the IBA’s Arbitration Committee (2008-2009), he has served on the LCIA Court (2010-2015), of which he was a vice-president (2011-2015), and the ICC International Court of Arbitration (2015-2021). He was appointed by the Government of Canada to ICSID’s Panel of Arbitrators in 2021 for a six-year term. Mr Bienvenu has pleaded before the courts of Quebec, the Federal Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada. He was involved in numerous challenges to the constitutional validity of provincial and federal legislation and has extensive experience in public law litigation. He has participated in more than 15 appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada, representing government bodies, institutions, corporations, and individuals in a range of international, constitutional, and commercial law disputes, including representing the Attorney General of Canada in the landmark Reference re Secession of Quebec.

Mr. Bienvenu practiced for more than 35 years at Norton Rose Fulbright Canada (previously Ogilvy Renault LLP) and served as global co-head of Norton Rose Fulbright’s international arbitration practice from 2011 to 2022. He withdrew from the partnership of Norton Rose Fulbright in June 2022 to focus on his practice as an international arbitrator and joined IMK LLP, a Montreal-based disputes firm, in July 2022. He is also a member of the roster of arbitrators of Arbitration Place, in Toronto. Mr Bienvenu is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

He was awarded the distinction Advocatus Emeritus by the Quebec Bar in 2008, and the Paul-André Crépeau Medal by the Canadian Bar Association in 2013 for his contribution to the advancement of the international dimension of private law and commercial law in Canada.



Ms Yas Banifatemi is a founding partner of Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Disputes. Prior to founding Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Disputes, she served as Shearman & Sterling’s Global International Arbitration Practice Group Leader, Public International Law Team Leader and Lead Industry Coordinator for Energy. She is a former Vice-President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, a former member of the LCIA Court and a member of the ICSID panel of arbitrators.

She represents States, State entities and companies in international arbitration cases under the ICSID, UNCITRAL, ICC, LCIA, SCC, CRCICA, HKIAC, DIS and Swiss Arbitration Rules, with particular focus on international investment and energy disputes. She also advises States, State entities and corporations on a variety of public international law issues, such as the law of treaties, State responsibility, State contracts, immunity of States and other.

Yas Banifatemi has served as Chair and arbitrator in numerous commercial and investor-State arbitrations, including international arbitration proceedings under the Rules of the ICC, ICSID, SCC, LCIA, CRCICA, SIAC, HKIAC and the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, as well as in ad hoc proceedings.

A Visiting Lecturer in Law at Yale and Harvard Law Schools, Yas Banifatemi also teaches International Investment Law at Panthéon-Sorbonne University. She has written extensively on international arbitration and public international law issues.



Mr John P Bang is a senior partner (foreign attorney) at Peter & Kim, a specialized law firm in international arbitration. He was previously the head and co-founder of the International Arbitration and Cross-Border Litigation Practice at Bae, Kim & Lee LLC.

Over the past 20 years, he has represented parties in over 250 domestic and international arbitral proceedings seated in Asia, Europe and North America, ranging from multi-million to multi-billion dollar disputes. He has also served as sole arbitrator, co-arbitrator and chair in arbitral disputes under various arbitral institutions.

John is recognised as a leading arbitration practitioner in industry rankings such as Who’s Who Legal, Chambers Asia and Asialaw Leading Lawyers. In 2016, he was Asialaw’s “Disputes Star of the Year” for South Korea, and in 2018, Who’s Who Legal listed him as a Thought Leader in international arbitration. In April 2018, he received a Special Commendation from the Minister of Justice of Korea for his contribution to the development of arbitration in Korea. Chambers & Partners quotes a client as praising him for his “most-effective advocacy, comprehensive understanding of Korean disputes and dedication to detail”.

John is presently a member of the Executive Committee of the Korea Council for International Arbitration and a senior officer in the IBA Litigation Committee. Previously, he was a member of the drafting committee for the ICCA Sourcebook for Logistical Matters in Procedural Orders. He also served as Federal Law Clerk to the Honorable Kathryn C. Ferguson, USBJ, New Jersey.


Dr. Claudia Annacker is an independent arbitrator and counsel based in Paris.  She specializes in international arbitration and public international law, in particular investor-State disputes, inter-State disputes, disputes involving international organizations and human rights disputes.

Dr. Annacker has represented sovereign and private parties in more than 35 investment arbitrations, as well as in commercial and inter-State arbitrations.  Dr. Annacker has also served as arbitrator in investment treaty and commercial arbitrations.  She is a member of several arbitrator panels, including the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators and the SIAC Panel of Arbitrators.  She is a member of the SIAC Court of Arbitration and the VIAC Board (President of the Investment Arbitration Committee).

Dr. Annacker received a Ph.D. with high honors and a venia legendi et docendi (habilitation) for public international law from the University of Vienna.  Dr. Annacker is an adjunct professor at the University of Vienna and has been a visiting professor at the Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense University.  She has published widely in the fields of international arbitration and public international law.



Catherine Amirfar is a litigation partner at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. She co-chairs the firm’s International Dispute Resolution Group and Public International Law Group.

Her practice focuses on public international law, international commercial and treaty arbitration, and international and complex commercial litigation. She is also a member of the firm’s Management Committee.

Ms Amirfar has been ranked among the leading international arbitration practitioners by Chambers Global, which has described her as “very composed, intelligent and a master of investment arbitration.”

Prior to rejoining Debevoise in 2016, Ms Amirfar spent two years as the Counselor on International Law to the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State. During her tenure as Counselor, Ms. Amirfar advised the State Department on its most significant litigation matters involving international law and foreign relations. She received the Superior Honor Award for her service to the Department.

Ms Amirfar serves as the President of the American Society of International Law and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Law Institute, and the Advisory Committee on International Law for the U.S. Department of State. She has written extensively on international arbitration, the relationship between international law and U.S. domestic law, international human rights and humanitarian law, investor-state disputes, and the law of consular and diplomatic immunities.



Mr. Jose Daniel Amado is a founding partner of Miranda & Amado in Lima and teaches international arbitration law at the Catholic University of Peru. His professional practice focuses on Corporate Law, Infrastructure Projects and International Arbitration. He has acted in some of the most important cross-border transactions and international disputes that have taken place in Peru in the last two decades.

Mr. Amado is regularly ranked as an international arbitration and corporate law expert by publications such as Who’sWhoLegal, GAR100, Chambers, Legal500, Best Lawyers and IFLR1000 and, in 2009, was named “Latin American Law Firm Leader of the Year” by LatinLawyer magazine. Mr. Amado regularly acts as party counsel, arbitrator and expert witness in domestic and international arbitrations.

From 2001 to 2002, Mr. Amado was Deputy to the Prime Minister of Peru and Chief of Advisors to the Council of Ministers. From 2013 to 2014, Mr. Amado was a Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge’s Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, as well as Scholar-in-Residence at Wilmer Hale’s international arbitration group. From 2014 to 2016, Mr. Amado was a Member of the Arbitration Court of the Lima Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Amado is the Chair of the Court of Arbitration of AmCham Peru´s International Arbitration Centre. He is also a Member of the ICC Arbitration Commission, of SIAC´s Users Council and of the Award Scrutiny Commission of CIAM (Madrid). Mr. Amado is further the Website Officer of the IBA Arbitration Committee and a Member of the Board of Advisors of Delos Dispute Resolution.

Mr. Amado received his LL.B. degree summa cum laude from the Catholic University of Peru and he holds an LL.M. from Harvard University, where he was awarded the Laylin Prize of Public International Law.

Mr. Amado is the author or co-author of several articles, essays and publications including a book titled “Arbitrating the Conduct of International Investors” (Cambridge University Press, 2018).



Funke Adekoya is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and partner and head of the arbitration practice at ǼLEX, a Lagos Nigeria based law firm with offices in Accra, Ghana. She has dual nationality (Nigerian/British) and is dual qualified; in addition to having qualified as a legal practitioner in Nigeria in 1975, she was admitted as a solicitor in England and Wales in 2004 where she maintains a current practicing licence. She is a Chartered Arbitrator of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and a Governing Board Member of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration.

In addition to being appointed as counsel in arbitration related litigation, she also represents parties as counsel or arbitrator in commercial arbitrations. Her appointments have been both ad-hoc and institutional under the LCIA, ICC and ICSID Rules, where she has acted as either sole or party-appointed arbitrator or chaired arbitral panels in disputes in the commercial, energy and natural resources, construction and infrastructure sectors.

She is ranked in Chambers Global and in Who’s Who Legal Arbitration, is listed on the Chairman’s Panel of Arbitrators at ICSID as well as the panels of many other international arbitration institutions, and is currently a member of the ICC Africa Commission.


Toby Landau KC is a barrister and arbitrator, and a member of the Bars of England & Wales, Singapore, New York, BVI and Northern Ireland (and the DIFC). He practices from Duxton Hill Chambers in Singapore, and as a Sole Practitioner in London.

As Arbitrator, he has sat as President and Co-Arbitrator in numerous Investor-State and commercial disputes worldwide, under most of the leading institutional and ad hoc rules. As Counsel, he has argued hundreds of major international investor-State and commercial arbitrations, as well as many ground-breaking arbitration cases in Court (including Halliburton v Chubb; Enka v Chubb; Dallah v Pakistan; Jivraj v Hashwani; Ust-Kamenogorsk v AES; IPCO v NNPC in the UK Supreme Court, and First Media v Astro in the Courts of Singapore and Hong Kong).

He is Visiting Professor at Kings College London; a Court Member of SIAC; previously LCIA Court Member and SCC Board Member; UK delegate to the UNCITRAL Working Group on Arbitration (1994-2013); and a draftsman of the English Arbitration Act 1996 as well as many other laws and arbitration rules in several countries. Since April 2012, he has been a member of the Panel of Advisors of the Attorney-General of Singapore.



Mr Cavinder Bull, SC is a Vice-President of the Court of Arbitration and the Chief Executive Officer of Drew & Napier LLC. He is also a member of the Governing Board of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) and Vice-President of the Asia Pacific Regional Arbitration Group. He was Deputy Chairman of the SIAC from October 2010 to April 2017.

Mr Bull has an active practice in complex litigation and international arbitration. He has acted as counsel in numerous international arbitrations and has represented governments, financial institutions and corporations from various parts of the world. He is also experienced in investor-state disputes, where he has acted as both counsel and arbitrator. Legal 500 praised him as a “very astute lawyer on strategy and law” while Chambers & Partners describes him as a “consummate advocate”; a “very rare talent in disputes”; and says that “complex arbitrations are his specialisation”.

Mr Bull is on the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators and has been appointed as an arbitrator in ICSID, PCA, NAFTA, ICC, SIAC, LCIA, UNCITRAL and ad hoc arbitrations.

Mr Bull graduated with First Class Honours in law from Oxford University and has a Masters in law from Harvard Law School. He has been called to the Bar in Singapore, New York and England & Wales. He was appointed Senior Counsel in 2008.


Duong is qualified to practice law in Vietnam.

Prior to joining SIAC, Duong worked as a counsel at a leading international arbitration centre in Vietnam where she administered domestic and international arbitration matters conducted under the auspice of the arbitration law of Vietnam and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. She thereafter practiced international arbitration with the Singapore office of a leading Vietnam-based law firm where she focused on Vietnam-related matters in construction and petroleum sectors. 

Duong speaks Vietnamese and English.

Email: [email protected]



Chen graduated from Fudan University (Bachelor’s degree in law), Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (LL.M. in International Trade Law) and Georgetown University (LL.M. in International Business and Economic Law).

Prior to joining SIAC, Chen worked as legal officer at the Court of Justice of the European Union, and practiced WTO dispute settlement and trade remedy investigation at law firms in Brussels and Beijing.

Chen is qualified to practice law in China and New York State. She speaks Chinese (Mandarin and Shanghainese), English and French.

Email: [email protected]



Jayden graduated with an LL.B. (Hons) from the Singapore Management University School of Law. He is admitted to practice as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Prior to joining SIAC, he practiced arbitration and litigation at a law firm in Singapore.

Jayden is fluent in English and Mandarin.

Email: [email protected]


Lynnette graduated with an LL.B. (Hons) from Monash Law School, Melbourne, Australia and holds a Bachelor of Communication Studies (Hons) from the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. She is admitted to practice as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. During law school, Lynnette participated in moot court competitions, which included representing Monash at the FDI Moot.

Prior to joining SIAC, Lynnette practiced with Singapore law firms and worked at the chambers of a leading international arbitrator. She also worked with the Legal Aid Bureau in Singapore as a legal executive.

Email: [email protected]


Prior to joining the SIAC, Thea was an Associate Solicitor at the Office of the Solicitor General in the Philippines where she handled criminal, civil, international commercial, and investor-state arbitration. She has also handled cases across various sectors such as energy, public-private partnerships, gaming, competition law, among others. She was also once part of the Philippine delegation in the UNCITRAL Working Group III on Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform.  She also worked as legal intern at the Philippine Supreme Court. 

Thea earned her Juris Doctor Degree (J.D.) from the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law in the Philippines and is admitted to the Philippine Bar.

Thea speaks Filipino (Cebuano and Tagalog) and English.

Email: [email protected]


Shi Jean graduated with an LL.B. (Hons) from the Singapore Management University School of Law. She is admitted to practice as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Prior to joining SIAC, she practiced shipping and commercial litigation at a law firm in Singapore.

Email: [email protected]


Lawrence Boo is a pioneer in the development of Singapore arbitration. He served as the first Chief Executive Officer and Registrar of SIAC (1991-1996) and was recalled to serve SIAC from 2004 to 2009 as the Deputy Chairman. Boo is one of Singapore’s leading international arbitrators, having sat as arbitrator in more than 300 cases and written numerous awards. His cases included those administered by the AAA, ICC, ICSID, CIETAC, SIAC, LCIA, KLRCA, BANI, HKIAC and ad hoc arbitrations. He is designated by Singapore to the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators (Dec 2013-Dec 2019).

Boo leads the teaching of international commercial arbitration at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore since 1994. He also teaches at Bond University, Australia. He is the author of “Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore Volume 1(2) – Arbitration” (Lexis-Nexis 1998, 2003 Re-issue, 2011 Re-issue, 2017 Re-issue) and one of the co-authors of UNCITRAL Digest on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (UN July 2012).

For his contribution to the development of international arbitration and mediation, Boo was conferred the honour of Bintang Bakti Masyarakat (BBM)(The Public Service Star) in August 2009 by the President of Singapore.



Luke Sobota is a founding and managing partner of Three Crowns, resident in the Washington DC office. His practice is dedicated to commercial, investor-state, and inter-state arbitration, and he has extensive experience in the technology, energy, and financial sectors. He is recognized in leading directories and rankings, such as Chambers & Partners, Legal 500, and Who’s Who Legal.

Luke is a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and an Adjunct Professor at the University of Miami Law School. Among other publications, he is co-author of General Principles of Law and International Due Process (Oxford University Press, 2017) and the second edition of Judge Stephen Schwebel’s International Arbitration: Three Salient Principles (Cambridge University Press, anticipated 2020).



Yee Leong is the Co-Head of Allen & Gledhill LLP’s International Arbitration practice. His primary area of practice is in international arbitration focusing on the areas of energy, oil and gas, power and infrastructure projects in Singapore, Malaysia and the region. In practice for more than 29 years, Yee Leong is recognised as a leading international dispute resolution practitioner in the Asia-Pacific region.

Yee Leong is a Chartered Arbitrator and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators. He is a Director of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and also on the panel of arbitrators for SIAC, Asian International Arbitration Centre and CIArb Presidential Panel of Arbitrators. He is also a Jurisdictional Council Member for Singapore for Inter-Pacific Bar Association and Chairman for Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee for the Law Society of Singapore.

Yee Leong also served as a director of Singapore LNG Pte Ltd from 2011 to 2015. In 2018, he was among the inaugural batch of select practitioners to be recognised as a Senior Accredited Specialist in Building and Construction Law by the Singapore Academy of Law.



Mr Siraj Omar, S.C. is a Director in the Dispute Resolution department at Drew & Napier LLC. He specializes in complex, high-value commercial disputes and has more than two decades of active trial and appellate practice in the Singapore Courts and in international arbitrations.

He is a civilian panel member on the Military Court of Appeal, Deputy Commissioner of the Government Procurement Adjudication Tribunal and a member of the Specialist Mediator Panel (Singapore) of the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC).

Siraj holds Fellowships at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators (SIArb) and the Singapore Academy of Law. He is also a member of the International Association of Defence Counsel.

He sits on the Working Group of the Professional Conduct Council chaired by the Chief Justice of Singapore and the Accreditation Committee of the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) and was a member of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules Sub-Committee. He is a past member of the Council of The Law Society of Singapore and has been a member of its Inquiry Panel since 2009.
Siraj is recognized in all the leading legal directories and has been described as “a star” and “a formidable litigator”.

He was appointed Senior Counsel in 2019.



Gerald Singham is the Global Vice-Chair & ASEAN CEO at Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP. He is also a Senior Partner of Dentons Rodyk’s Corporate Practice Department and Co-Head of the Competition and Antitrust Practice. Gerald has extensive experience advising domestic and multinational clients from a broad range of industries on competition law matters and deals with all aspects of competition law, including merger clearance/notifications, cartel investigations, and advising on competition restrictive practices and sectoral competition laws. Apart from the competition area, he has experience in other aspects of corporate transactions like mergers and acquisitions, private equity and foreign direct investments.

Gerald is named in numerous legal guides and directories including the Chambers Asia Pacific, The Legal 500 Asia Pacific, Global Competition Review, Who’s Who Legal, IFLR1000, Asialaw Leading Lawyers and Best Lawyers.

Gerald is also appointed on the boards of several public agencies including as Chairman of National Crime Prevention Council, National Heritage Board and Republic Polytechnic. He is also appointed as a member of the Military Court of Appeal.



Mr Rajiv K Luthra is the Founder and Managing Partner of L&L Partners (formerly Luthra & Luthra Law Offices), a full- service top-tier Indian law firm.

Mr Luthra has been closely involved with the development of Project Finance and Public-Private-Partnership models in India and has advised on Infrastructure Projects worth over US$ 100 billion and recently he has been recognised as ‘Leader’ for Project Finance practice by Who’s Who Legal, 2021.

He has also been inducted in ‘Hall of Fame’ for Corporate and M&A, India by Legal 500, 2021. And has been featured in ‘Top 50 Legal Icons, India’ by India Business Law Journal. He is also a recipient of the ‘National Law Day Award’ bestowed upon him by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and the Chief justice of India the ‘Managing Partner of the Year 2020’ Award by ALB India, Inducted in the ‘M&A Hall of Fame, New York’ and the ‘International Jurists Award’’ by the Attorney-General and Chief Justice of the United Kingdom among several others.

He has been conferred with Alumni of Harvard Law School and a Fellow of the British Commerce Society and the Royal Geographical Society and has served on a number of high-level committees, including the High Level Advisory Group, appointed by Commerce Ministry to formulate India’s trade policies; High Level Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility; Securities Exchange Board of India high level committees for (i) Reviewing Insider Trading Regulations and (iii) Rationalization of Investment Routes and Monitoring of Foreign Portfolio Investments; Advisory Board of the Competition Commission of India amongst others. He is also the Convener of the Joint Economic & Trade Committee, formed to advise the Government of India on the liberalisation of legal services between India and the UK.

He also serves on the Board of the Symphony International Holdings Limited (a London Stock Exchange listed company) and Network18 Media & Investments Limited as an Independent Director. He is also a former member of the Corporate Governance & Audit Committee of the Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (India) [HSBC].



Michael Moser is an international arbitrator with Twenty Essex Chambers. He is a Chartered Arbitrator, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and a Fellow of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators. He received his law degree from the Harvard Law School and holds a PhD (With Distinction) from Columbia University.

Mr Moser has served as Chairman of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), Board Member of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) and Court Member of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). He currently sits as a member of the Board of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the Vienna International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) and the Governing Board of the International Council on Commercial Arbitration (ICCA).

Mr Moser is the author or editor of many books and articles, including Manging “Belt and Road” Business Disputes: A Case Study of Legal Problems and Solutions (Kluwer, 2021), A Guide to the HKIAC Arbitration Rules (OUP, 2021 and 2017), The Asia Arbitration Handbook (OUP, 2011) and former General Editor of The Journal of International Arbitration.

Resident in Asia for more than 40 years, Mr Moser works principally from offices in Hong Kong and Singapore. He has acted as arbitrator in more than 300 cases under the UNCITRAL Rules and the institutional rules of the SIAC, the ICC, ICSID, HKIAC, JCAA, LCIA, ICDR and others. Fluent in Chinese (Putonghua), he was the first foreigner to be appointed an arbitrator in China in the 1980’s. In recognition of his contributions to arbitration in Asia, Mr Moser was awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award by Chambers. He is consistently rated as being one of the “very best” and “most in demand” arbitrators globally.



Lucy Reed is President of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Court. Lucy, an independent arbitrator with Arbitration Chambers (New York), is also the immediate past President of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA). She retired in 2016 from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, where she led the global international arbitration group from the New York, Hong Kong and Singapore offices, and then was Professor of Practice and Director of the Centre for International Law at NUS through 2019. 

In addition to practicing international commercial and investment treaty arbitration, she served as an arbitrator on the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission (a humanitarian law/Geneva Convention claims commission), co-director of the Claims Resolution Tribunal for Dormant Accounts in Switzerland (a Holocaust claims tribunal) and, while with the US State Department, the US Agent to the Iran-US Claims Tribunal. 

Lucy, a member of the US Council on Foreign Relations, is a former President of the American Society of International Law. She was educated at the University of Chicago Law School and Brown University.



Mr Tham Sai Choy is a chartered accountant. He was the managing partner of KPMG Singapore and then chairman of its KPMG Asia Pacific operations when he retired. As an accountant in practice, he led audits, investigations and consultancy work at a wide range of Singapore companies.

He serves on the boards of the Nanyang Polytechnic and Mount Alvernia Hospital, chairing their audit committees, and on the boards of Keppel Corporation Limited, and DBS Group Holdings Limited. He is also the Chairman of EM Services Private Limited.

Mr Tham trained and qualified as a Chartered Accountant in the UK. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and the Singapore Institute of Directors.


Pauline is a Malaysian-qualified lawyer with a background in litigation and arbitration. Prior to joining SIAC, Pauline practiced at a top-tier law firm in Malaysia. She read law at the University of Malaya under a full scholarship from an international oil & gas company and was placed on the Dean’s List. During her time in law school, Pauline was active in moot court competitions and represented Malaysia in international competitions.

Pauline is fluent in English and Bahasa Malaysia and a competent speaker of Cantonese and Mandarin. She also has a good understanding of Bahasa Indonesia.

Email: [email protected]



Ms Ye is the senior partner of King & Wood Mallesons PRC’s cross-border dispute resolution practice and a recognised expert on PRC-related dispute resolution in the Asia Pacific region.

Ms Ye is a former member of the board of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) and a member of the advisory board of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA), a former court member of Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) and a member of the SIAC Board of Directors. Ms. Ye is also a former court member of London Court of International Arbitration. She has been frequently invited to speak at international and regional professional conferences as an international arbitration expert as she is recognized as a leading counsel and arbitrator for international arbitration cases.

Ms Ye received her LL.B. from Peking University Law School, and holds LL.Ms from the Law School of China Academy of Social Sciences and Harvard Law School. She was admitted to practice in PRC and New York State in 1988 and 1999, respectively.


As the Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s (SIAC) Chief Executive Officer, Gloria works closely with the Chairman and the Board in formulating and fulfilling the vision and strategies for SIAC, and is responsible for the overall management and operations of the institution.

Gloria was previously the Director of the Legal Industry Division in Singapore’s Ministry of Law and concurrently held the statutory appointment of Director of Legal Services, heading its Legal Services Regulatory Authority. As Director of the Legal Industry Division, she oversaw the development of Singapore’s legal sector, as well as the development and promotion of the international dispute resolution regime in Singapore. In 2008, Gloria was awarded the Public Administration Medal (Bronze) for her contributions as General Manager of the Community Mediation Unit. In 2016, she was awarded the Public Administration Medal (Silver) for her contributions as Director of the Legal Industry Division.

Gloria also headed the Singapore delegation involved in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group II (Dispute Settlement) discussions from 2019-2021. Gloria is experienced in legal policy, alternative dispute resolution and community mediation.

She graduated from the National University of Singapore (NUS) and is called to the Singapore Bar. She also holds a Graduate Certificate in International Arbitration from NUS and an LL.M from Harvard University.


As Registrar of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, Kevin leads the SIAC Secretariat in the provision of case management services. Over the course of the past decade, Kevin has overseen the administration of thousands of international cases under all versions of the SIAC Rules and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Under the Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994, Kevin is the statutory taxation authority and he is empowered to authenticate and certify awards and arbitration agreements. 

Kevin worked closely on the revisions to the SIAC Rules 2013, SIAC Rules 2016, SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules 2017, and leads the SIAC Secretariat on the drafting of the seventh edition of the SIAC Rules. He is an active participant at UNCITRAL Working Group II (Dispute Settlement) and UNCITRAL Working Group III (ISDS) and frequently speaks, lectures and conducts training on contemporary issues in arbitration. 

Recognised for being ‘truly exceptional in his passion for, and knowledge of, international arbitration’, Kevin is listed by Who’s Who Legal as a Global Leader and National Leader for Southeast Asia in international arbitration. Described as a ‘rock star of arbitration’ and ‘a calm presence and a safe pair of hands for the most complex matters’, peers and clients say that he is ‘without equal in the region, in terms of institutional knowledge and expertise in international arbitration’ and that ‘no one knows more about arbitration in Singapore’. 

Kevin is qualified as a Barrister and Solicitor with the Law Society of Upper Canada. He speaks English and French. 

Email: [email protected]



Aliona graduated with an LL.M. in International Business Law from the National University of Singapore, specializing in International Arbitration, International Investment Law and Comparative Oil and Gas Law. She also holds a B.A. degree in Anthropology and Law from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Prior to joining SIAC, Aliona worked at a global financial services provider and completed internships at international law firms in Europe and Asia.

Aliona is a New York-qualified lawyer. She is fluent in English, Russian and Lithuanian.

Email: [email protected]


Qian is a graduate of Sichuan University (Bachelor’s degree in law), Xiamen University (Master’s degree in law) and the Geneva LL.M. in International Dispute Settlement (MIDS). Qian is also the Assistant Editor of Asian International Arbitration Journal.

Qualified in China, Qian practiced litigation and arbitration in Beijing with a Chinese law firm prior to joining SIAC.

Qian is fluent in Mandarin and English.

Email: [email protected]



Kendista graduated from Universitas Katolik Parahyangan where he actively participated and performed with distinction in international moot court competitions. Kendista thereafter practiced commercial litigation and arbitration – both national and international – with leading dispute resolution firms in Indonesia. He also clerked for one of the foremost Indonesian arbitrators prior to joining SIAC.

Kendista is admitted to the Indonesian Bar. He is fluent in English and Bahasa Indonesia.

Email: [email protected]



Nigel Blackaby QC is a partner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Washington DC and global head of the firm’s international arbitration group. He has acted as counsel and arbitrator in over 100 ad hoc and institutional arbitrations (including over 40 investment arbitrations for investors and states). He has particular expertise in Latin America and energy and mining disputes. Recent cases include:

• Burlington Resources, Inc. v Ecuador (ICSID);
• Repsol v Argentina (ICSID);
• Pan American Energy v Bolivia (ICSID);
• Total, CMS, Suez, BG Group, Aguas de Barcelona and National Grid (among others) v Argentina;
• Crystallex International Corporation v Venezuela (ICSID Additional Facility)
• Tenaris and Talta v Venezuela

Nigel is a former president of the IBA Subcommittee on Investment Arbitration, an editor since 1995 of Arbitration International, co-author of Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (6th edition, Oxford, 2015), Guide to ICSID Arbitration (2nd edition, Kluwer, 2010) and International Arbitration in Latin America (Kluwer, 2003). He is an adjunct professor of international arbitration at American University Washington College of Law.

He is a graduate of the University of Exeter (UK) and the Université d’Aix-Marseille III (France) and has conducted arbitrations in English, Spanish, Portuguese and French.



Lijun Cao is a partner and head of arbitration practice of Zhong Lun Law Firm.

Lijun specializes in international arbitration and currently advises and represents clients in arbitrations before CIETAC, HKIAC, SIAC, the ICC Court and other arbitration forums, as well as arbitration-related lawsuits before various PRC courts.

Lijun is an experienced arbitrator. He sits on the panel of arbitrators of a few institutions, including CIETAC, HKIAC, SIAC and ICDR. He is also a Member of the CRCICA Advisory Committee, the Vice Chair of the Arbitration and ADR Committee of ICC China, and the Secretary General of the Arbitration Committee of All China Lawyers Association (ACLA).

Lijun is licensed to practice law in China and the New York State. He holds an LL.B. from the University of International Business and Economics (Beijing) and an LL.M. from the University of California, Berkeley.

Lijun is a guest professor at the University of International Business and Economics, the Beijing Foreign Studies University and the China University of Political Science and Law.


CHAN Hock Keng is the Co-Head of WongPartnership’s Commercial & Corporate Disputes Practice and a Partner in the International Arbitration Practice. He has an active practice as a counsel in Court proceedings and international arbitrations and regularly sits as an arbitrator.

He is a Honorary Legal Adviser to the Singapore Medical Association, a panel member of the Inquiry Committee as well as the Disciplinary Tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice to hear complaints against lawyers. He is also a Honorary Council Member of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry.

On the arbitration front, Hock Keng has been newly appointed as a member of the Court of Arbitration of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. He is also a Chartered Arbitrator of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and a panel member of various arbitration centres.

Hock Keng is recognised as a leading individual for his arbitration expertise by Chambers Asia-Pacific Leading Lawyers for Business and is commended by clients as a “very creative lawyer” and who is “commercially minded and very quick to grasp points opposing counsels make”.

Shwetha Bidhuri, Director & Head, South Asia

Shwetha joined SIAC in November 2018 and is based in the SIAC Mumbai Office.

Shwetha was enrolled as an Advocate in 2007 and holds a Master of Laws degree. Prior to joining SIAC, Shwetha worked in the dispute resolution practice of a leading law firm in New Delhi for nearly a decade on commercial litigation cases as well as investment treaty arbitrations involving foreign and Indian investors. Shwetha has worked on many leading cases which have contributed to the development of law affecting global companies.


Thomas R. Snider is a Partner and the Head of International Arbitration at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP based in the firm’s Dubai office. He has represented corporate entities and sovereign states in a wide range of matters involving international arbitration and other forms of cross-border dispute resolution, including state-to-state arbitration, international commercial arbitration, international investment disputes, and U.S. court litigation.

From 2001 to 2009, Mr. Snider was a member of the legal team representing the Government of Ethiopia before the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, an international arbitral tribunal that adjudicated claims for loss, damage, and injury arising during an international armed conflict.  In this context, he worked as a resident attorney in Addis Ababa for three years.

Mr. Snider frequently speaks and writes on topics involving international law and dispute resolution.  Before relocating to Dubai, he was a Professorial Lecturer in Law at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C.  He has been recognized multiple times in Who’s Who Legal’s Future Leaders – Arbitration.

Mr. Snider received his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame and his J.D. from Harvard Law School.



Prof. Dr. Guido Santiago Tawil has been an independent arbitrator since 2018. He was formerly the Senior Partner and Head of the International Arbitration, Administrative Law and Regulatory practices at M. & M. Bomchil (1993-2018) in Buenos Aires, and previously a Commissioner of Argentina´s Securities & Exchange Commission (1991-1993).

He was a Chair Professor of Administrative Law at the University of Buenos Aires School of Law and member of its Ph.D. and Awards Committees (1984-2019), and was awarded the University of Buenos Aires School of Law Award (1991) for the best doctoral dissertation in all areas of law. He has also received the “Alejandro E. Shaw Award” from the Buenos Aires Bar and the “Konex Award (2016) for his legal contributions.

His other accolades include being a founding member and the first President of the Latin American Arbitration Association (ALArb) (2011-2014), a Co-Chair of the IBA´s Arbitration Committee (2009-2010) and its Latin American Forum (2008), a member of the IBA´s LPD Council (2011-2014), a Governing Council Member of ICCA (2011-2019) and Co-Chair of its Initiatives Committee. He currently serves as member of ICCA’s Advisory Board, Co-chair of ICCA´s Task Force on Standards of Practice and member of its Nominations Committee, a member of the Foundation for International Arbitration Advocacy’s (FIAA) Board of Trustees, a Chair of SIAC’s Latin America Regional Committee and member of its Users Council Executive Committee (2017-2021).

In addition, he is a former Court member of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) (2008-2013) and current member of the LCIA Company, a member of the ICC´s Latin American Arbitration Group; a member of ITA´s Academic Council (2004-2013), a member of the Administrative Law Institute of Argentina National Law Academy and of the Argentine Chamber of Commerce (CAC) Advisory Committee.

Prof. Tawil received his law degree in 1983, an LL. M. in Administrative Law and Public Administration in 1986, and a Ph. D. in 1991, with the highest academic qualifications, all of them issued by the University of Buenos Aires School of Law.


Hiroyuki Tezuka is a partner at Nishimura & Asahi, and heads the firm’s international dispute resolution practice group. He specialises in international commercial litigation and arbitration. He has been involved in a number of international arbitrations as counsel, sole-arbitrator, co-arbitrator or chairman including before the ICC, JCAA, AAA-ICDR, VIAC, KCAB and SIAC.

Hiroyuki serves as an executive director of the Japan Association of Arbitrators, was a vice-chair of the Arbitration Committee of the IBA Legal Practice Division, and was a committee co-chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee at the IPBA. Since 2013, he has been a member of SIAC’s Court of Arbitration. From 2013 to 2016, he taught international arbitration at the University of Tokyo, School of Law as visiting professor. Since 2016, he has been a member of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, the ACICA council, the Seoul IDRC Advisory Board and a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb). Since 2018 he has been a Council member of the ICC Institute of World Business Law.

Hiroyuki graduated from the University of Tokyo (LL.B., 1984) and Harvard Law School (LL.M., 1992). He is admitted as an attorney in Japan (1986) and in New York (1993).


Since 1989, Mr Thambiayah has been appointed as chairman of arbitral tribunals, sole arbitrator or co-arbitrator in over 450 ad-hoc and institutional arbitrations of disputes arising from international investment contracts and joint ventures, infrastructure, building & civil engineering contracts, oil and gas operation, distribution and transport network contracts, and maritime and international trade contracts (including charterparties and export finance), in Bangkok, Colombo, Delhi, Hong Kong, Karachi, Kolkata, Kuala Lumpur, London, Mumbai, New York, Paris, Perth, Seoul, Sydney and Singapore, with the total value of claims in excess of US$8 billion.

These appointments include: as sole arbitrator by the High Court of Singapore, by the ICC, ICDR, HKIAC and SIAC, acting as the appointing authorities; as presiding arbitrator by party appointed arbitrators from Australia, Malaysia, Seoul, London, U.S.A., Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and Singapore, and by the ICC and AIAC, acting as the appointing authorities; and as co-arbitrator by parties from various countries and by the ICC, ICDR and SIAC, acting as the appointing authorities.

Mr Thambiayah is a member of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, Vice-Chair of the Council of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, Chair of the Australasian Chapter of the ICC Institute, and is on the panel of arbitrators of ACICA, AIAC, AMTAC, APRAG, HKIAC, ICDR, MLAANZ, SIAC and SCMA.