Our Rules

SIAC Rules 2013

RULES TRANSLATIONS

Note: English is the official language of the SIAC Rules 2013. In the event of any discrepancy or inconsistency between the English version of these Rules and any other languages in which these Rules are published, the English version shall prevail.

SIAC would like to thank the law firms below for translating the SIAC Rules 2013 into the following languages:

Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC RULES (5th EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013)

1.1Where parties have agreed to refer their disputes to 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.
1.2These Rules shall come into force on 1 April 2013 and, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, shall apply to any arbitration which is commenced on or after that date.
1.3

From 1 April 2013, the SIAC Rules (4th edition, 1 July 2010) are amended as follows.

a.

In Rule 1.3:

The definitions of “Board”, “Chairman” and “Committee of the Board” are deleted and the following are substituted:

“Board” means the Court;

“Chairman” means the President;

“Committee of the Board” means the Court;

b.

The following definitions are inserted after the definition of “Committee of the Board”:

“Committee of the Court” means a committee consisting of not less than two members of the Court appointed by the President (which may include the President);

“Court” means the Court of Arbitration of SIAC and includes a Committee of the Court;

“President” means the President of the Court and includes a Vice President and the Registrar;

1.4

From 1 April 2013, the SIAC Rules (3rd edition, 1 July 2007) are amended as follows.

a.

In Rule 1.2:

The definition of “Chairman” is deleted and the following is substituted:

“Chairman” means the President;

b.

The following definitions are inserted after the definition of “Chairman”:

“Committee of the Court” means a committee consisting of not less than two members of the Court appointed by the President (which may include the President);

“Court” means the Court of Arbitration of SIAC and includes a Committee of the Court;

“President” means the President of the Court and includes a Vice President and the Registrar;

1.5

In these Rules –

“Award” includes a partial or final award and an award of an Emergency Arbitrator;

“Committee of the Court” means a committee consisting of not less than two members of the Court appointed by the President (which may include the President);

“Court” means the Court of Arbitration of SIAC and includes a Committee of the Court;

“President” means the President of the Court and includes a Vice President and the Registrar;

"Registrar" means the Registrar of the Court and includes any Deputy Registrar;

"SIAC" means the Singapore International Arbitration Centre; and

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

Any pronoun shall be understood to be gender-neutral; and

Any singular noun shall be understood to refer to the plural in the appropriate circumstances.

2.1For 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 and facsimile) or delivered by any other means that provides a record of its delivery. It is deemed to have been received if it is delivered (i) to the addressee personally, (ii) to his habitual residence, place of business or designated address, (iii) to any address agreed by the parties, (iv) according to the practice of the parties in prior dealings, or (v) if none of these can be found after making reasonable inquiry, then at the addressee's last-known residence or place of business.
2.2The notice, communication, or proposal is deemed to have been received on the day it is delivered.
2.3For 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 not a business day at the place of receipt pursuant to Rule 2.1, the period is extended until the first business day which follows. Non-business days occurring during the running of the period of time are included in calculating the period.
2.4The parties shall file with the Registrar a copy of any notice, communication or proposal concerning the arbitral proceedings.
2.5Except as provided in these Rules, the Registrar may at any time extend or shorten any time limits prescribed under these Rules.
3.1 A party wishing to commence an arbitration (the "Claimant") shall file with the Registrar a Notice of Arbitration which shall comprise:
a. a demand that the dispute be referred to arbitration;
b. the names, address(es), 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 (or other instrument [e.g., investment treaty]) 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, an initial 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 proposal for the number of arbitrator(s) if this is not specified in the arbitration agreement;
h. unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the nomination of an arbitrator if the arbitration agreement provides for three arbitrators, or a proposal for a sole arbitrator if the arbitration agreement provides for a sole arbitrator;
i. any comment as to the applicable rules of law;
j. any comment as to the language of the arbitration; and
k. payment of the requisite filing fee.
3.2 The Notice of Arbitration may also include the Statement of Claim referred to in Rule 17.2.
3.2 The Notice of Arbitration may also include the Statement of Claim referred to in Rule 20.2.
3.3 The date of receipt of the complete Notice of Arbitration by the Registrar shall be deemed the date of commencement of the arbitration. For the avoidance of doubt, the Notice of Arbitration is deemed to be complete when all the requirements of Rule 3.1 are fulfilled or when the Registrar determines that there has been substantial compliance with such requirements. SIAC shall notify the parties on the commencement of arbitration.
3.4 The Claimant shall at the same time send a copy of the Notice of Arbitration to the Respondent, and it shall notify the Registrar that it has done so, specifying the mode of service employed and the date of service.
4.1

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

a.a confirmation or denial of all or part of the claims;
b.a brief statement describing the nature and circumstances of any counterclaim, specifying the relief claimed and, where possible, an initial quantification of the counterclaim amount;
c.any comment in response to any statements contained in the Notice of Arbitration under Rules 3.1(f), (g), (h), (i) and (j) or any comment with respect to the matters covered in such rules; and
d.unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the nomination of an arbitrator if the arbitration agreement provides for three arbitrators or, if the arbitration agreement provides for a sole arbitrator, agreement with Claimant’s proposal for a sole arbitrator or a counter-proposal.
4.2The Response may also include the Statement of Defence and a Statement of Counterclaim, as referred to in Rules 17.3 and 17.4.
4.3The Respondent shall at the same time send a copy of the Response to the Registrar, together with the payment of the requisite filing fee for any counterclaim, and shall notify the Registrar of the mode of service of the Response employed and the date of service.
5.1 Prior to the full constitution of the Tribunal, a party may apply to the Registrar in writing for the arbitral proceedings to be conducted in accordance with the Expedited Procedure under this Rule where any of the following criteria is satisfied:
a. the amount in dispute does not exceed the equivalent amount of S$5,000,000, representing the aggregate of the claim, counterclaim and any set-off defence;
b. the parties so agree; or
c. in cases of exceptional urgency.
5.2 When a party has applied to the Registrar under Rule 5.1, and when the President determines, after considering the views of the parties, that the arbitral proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Expedited Procedure, the following procedure shall apply:
a. The Registrar may shorten any time limits under these Rules;
b. The case shall be referred to a sole arbitrator, unless the President determines otherwise;
c. Unless the parties agree that the dispute shall be decided on the basis of documentary evidence only, the Tribunal shall hold a hearing for the examination of all witnesses and expert witnesses as well as for any argument;
d. The award shall be made within six months from the date when the Tribunal is constituted unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Registrar extends the time; and
e. The Tribunal shall state the reasons upon which the award is based in summary form, unless the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given.
6.1A sole arbitrator shall be appointed 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.
6.2If the parties have agreed that any arbitrator is to be appointed by one or more of the parties, or by any third person including the arbitrators already appointed, that agreement shall be treated as an agreement to nominate an arbitrator under these Rules.
6.3In all cases, the arbitrators nominated by the parties, or by any third person including the arbitrators already appointed, shall be subject to appointment by the President in his discretion.
6.4The President shall appoint an arbitrator as soon as practicable. Any decision by the President to appoint an arbitrator under these Rules shall be final and not subject to appeal.
6.5The President may appoint any nominee whose appointment has already been suggested or proposed by any party.
6.6The terms of appointment of each arbitrator shall be fixed by the Registrar in accordance with these Rules and Practice Notes for the time being in force, or in accordance with the agreement of the parties.
7.1If 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 the parties have reached an agreement on the nomination of a sole arbitrator, Rule 6.3 shall apply.
7.2If within 21 days after receipt by the Registrar of the Notice of Arbitration, the parties have not reached an agreement on the nomination of a sole arbitrator, or if at any time either party so requests, the President shall make the appointment as soon as practicable.
8.1 If three arbitrators are to be appointed, each party shall nominate one arbitrator.
8.2 If a party fails to make a nomination within 14 days after receipt of a party’s nomination of an arbitrator, or in the manner otherwise agreed by the parties, the President shall proceed to appoint the arbitrator on its behalf.
8.3 Unless the parties have agreed upon another procedure for appointing the third arbitrator, or if such agreed procedure does not result in a nomination within the time limit fixed by the parties or by the Registrar, the third arbitrator, who shall act as the presiding arbitrator, shall be appointed by the President.
9.1 Where there are more than two parties in the arbitration, and three arbitrators are to be appointed, the Claimant(s) shall jointly nominate one arbitrator and the Respondent(s) shall jointly nominate one arbitrator. In the absence of both such joint nominations having been made within 28 days of receipt by the Registrar of the Notice of Arbitration or within the period agreed by the parties or set by the Registrar, the Presidentshall appoint all three arbitrators and shall designate one of them to act as the presiding arbitrator.
9.2 Where there are more than two parties in the arbitration, and one arbitrator is to be appointed, all parties are to agree on an arbitrator. In the absence of such a joint nomination having been made within 28 days of receipt by the Registrar of the Notice of Arbitration or within the period agreed by the parties or set by the Registrar, the President shall appoint the arbitrator.
10.1Any 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.
10.2In making an appointment under these Rules, the President 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.
10.3The President shall also consider whether the arbitrator has sufficient availability to determine the case in a prompt and efficient manner appropriate to the nature of the arbitration.
10.4An arbitrator shall disclose to the parties and to the Registrar any circumstance that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event before appointment by the President.
10.5An arbitrator shall immediately disclose to the parties, to the other arbitrators and to the Registrar any circumstance of a similar nature that may arise during the arbitration.
10.6If the parties have agreed on any qualifications required of an arbitrator, the arbitrator shall be deemed to meet such qualifications unless a party states that the arbitrator is not so qualified within 14 days after receipt by that party of the notification of the nomination of the arbitrator. In the event of such a challenge, the procedure for challenge and replacement of an arbitrator in Rules 11 to 14 shall apply.
10.7No party or anyone acting on its behalf shall have any ex parte communication relating to the case with any arbitrator or with any candidate for appointment as party-nominated arbitrator, except to advise the candidate of the general nature of the controversy and of the anticipated proceedings and to discuss the candidate’s qualifications, availability or independence in relation to the parties, or to discuss the suitability of candidates for selection as a third arbitrator where the parties or party-designated arbitrators are to participate in that selection. No party or anyone acting on its behalf shall have any ex parte communication relating to the case with any candidate for presiding arbitrator.
11.1 Any arbitrator may be challenged if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator's impartiality or independence or if the arbitrator does not possess any requisite qualification on which the parties have agreed.
11.2 A party may challenge the arbitrator nominated by him only for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment has been made.
12.1 Subject to Rule 10.6, a 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 11.1 or 11.2 became known to that party.
12.2 The 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.
12.3 When 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.
12.4 In instances referred to in Rule 12.3, the procedure provided in Rules 6, 7, 8 or 9, 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-limits provided in those Rules shall commence from the date of receipt of the agreement of the other party to the challenge or the challenged arbitrator’s withdrawal.
13.1 If, within 7 days of receipt of the notice of challenge, the other party does not agree to the challenge and the arbitrator who is being challenged does not withdraw voluntarily, the Court shall decide the challenge.
13.2 If the Court sustains the challenge, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the procedure provided in Rules 6, 7, 8 or 9, 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-limits provided in those Rules shall commence from the date of the Registrar’s notification to the parties of the decision by the Court.
13.3 If the Court rejects the challenge, the arbitrator shall continue with the arbitration. Unless the Registrar ordered the suspension of the arbitration pursuant to Rule 12.2, pending the determination of the challenge by the Court, the challenged arbitrator shall be entitled to proceed in the arbitration.
13.4 The Court may fix the costs of the challenge and may direct by whom and how such costs should be borne.
13.5 The Court’s decision made under this Rule shall be final and not subject to appeal.
14.1 In the event of the death, resignation or removal of an arbitrator during the course of the arbitral proceedings, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the procedure applicable to the nomination and appointment of the arbitrator being replaced.
14.2 In the event that an arbitrator refuses or fails to act or in the event of a de jure or de facto impossibility of him performing his functions or that he is not fulfilling his functions in accordance with the Rules or within prescribed time limits, the procedure for challenge and replacement of an arbitrator provided in Rules 11 to 13 and 14.1 shall apply.
14.3 After consulting with the parties, the President may in his discretion remove an arbitrator who refuses or fails to act, or in the event of a de jure or de facto impossibility of him performing his functions, or if he is not fulfilling his functions in accordance with the Rules or within the prescribed time limits.

If under Rules 12 to 14 the sole or presiding arbitrator is replaced, any hearings held previously shall be repeated unless otherwise agreed by the parties. If any other arbitrator is replaced, such prior hearings may be repeated at the discretion of the Tribunal after consulting with the parties. If the Tribunal has issued an interim or partial award, any hearings related solely to that award shall not be repeated, and the award shall remain in effect.

 

16.1The Tribunal shall conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate, after consulting with the parties, to ensure the fair, expeditious, economical and final determination of the dispute.
16.2The Tribunal shall determine the relevance, materiality and admissibility of all evidence. Evidence need not be admissible in law.
16.3As soon as practicable after the appointment of all arbitrators, the Tribunal shall conduct a preliminary meeting with the parties, in person or by any other means, to discuss the procedures that will be most appropriate and efficient for the case.
16.4The Tribunal may in its discretion direct the order of proceedings, bifurcate proceedings, exclude cumulative or irrelevant testimony or other evidence and direct the parties to focus their presentations on issues the decision of which could dispose of all or part of the case.
16.5A presiding arbitrator may make procedural rulings alone, subject to revision by the Tribunal.
16.6All statements, documents or other information supplied to the Tribunal and the Registrar by one party shall simultaneously be communicated to the other party.
17.1 Unless the Tribunal determines otherwise, the submission of written statements shall proceed as set out in this Rule.
17.2 Unless already submitted pursuant to Rule 3.2, the Claimant shall, within a period of time to be determined by the Tribunal, send to the Respondent and the Tribunal a Statement of Claim setting out in full detail:
a. a statement of facts supporting the claim;
b. the legal grounds or arguments supporting the claim; and
c. the relief claimed together with the amount of all quantifiable claims.
17.3 Unless already submitted pursuant to Rule 4.2, the Respondent shall, within a period of time to be determined by the Tribunal, send to the Claimant a Statement of Defence setting out its full defence to the Statement of Claim, including without limitation, the facts and contentions of law on which it relies. The Statement of Defence shall also state any counterclaim, which shall comply with the requirements of Rule 17.2.
17.4 If a counterclaim is made, the Claimant shall, within a period of time to be determined by the Tribunal, send to the Respondent a Statement of Defence to the Counterclaim stating in full detail which of the facts and contentions of law in the Statement of Counterclaim it admits or denies, on what grounds it denies the claims or contentions, and on what other facts and contentions of law it relies.
17.5 A party may amend its claim, counterclaim or other submissions unless the Tribunal considers it inappropriate to allow such amendment having regard to the delay in making it or prejudice to the other party or any other circumstances. However, a claim or counterclaim may not be amended in such a manner that the amended claim or counterclaim falls outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.
17.6 The Tribunal shall decide which further submissions shall be required from the parties or may be presented by them. The Tribunal shall fix the periods of time for communicating such submissions.
17.7 All submissions referred to in this Rule shall be accompanied by copies of all supporting documents which have not previously been submitted by any party.
17.8 If the Claimant fails within the time specified to submit its Statement of Claim, the Tribunal may issue an order for the termination of the arbitral proceedings or give such other directions as may be appropriate.
17.9 If 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.
18.1 The parties may agree on the seat of arbitration. Failing such an agreement, the seat of arbitration shall be Singapore, unless the Tribunal determines, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that another seat is more appropriate.
18.2 The Tribunal may hold hearings and meetings by any means it considers expedient or appropriate and at any location it considers convenient or appropriate.
19.1 Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the Tribunal shall determine the language to be used in the proceedings.
19.2 If a document is written 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.
20.1 Any party may be represented by legal practitioners or any other representatives.
21.1Unless the parties have agreed on documents-only arbitration, the Tribunal shall, if either party so requests or the Tribunal so decides, hold a hearing for the presentation of evidence and/or for oral submissions on the merits of the dispute, including without limitation any issue as to jurisdiction.
21.2The Tribunal shall fix the date, time and place of any meeting or hearing and shall give the parties reasonable notice.
21.3If 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.
21.4Unless the parties agree otherwise, all meetings and hearings shall be in private, and any recordings, transcripts, or documents used shall remain confidential.
22.1Before any hearing, the Tribunal may require any party to give notice of the identity of witnesses, including expert witnesses, whom it intends to produce, the subject matter of their testimony and its relevance to the issues.
22.2The Tribunal has discretion to allow, refuse or limit the appearance of witnesses.
22.3Any witness who gives oral evidence may be questioned by each of the parties, their representatives and the Tribunal in such manner as the Tribunal shall determine.
22.4The 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.
22.5It shall be permissible for any party or its representatives to interview any witness or potential witness (that may be presented by that party) 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 an expert to report on specific issues; and
b. may require a party to give such expert any relevant information, or to produce or provide access to any relevant documents, goods or property for inspection.
23.2 Any expert so appointed shall submit a report in writing to the Tribunal. Upon receipt of such a written report, the Tribunal shall deliver a copy of the report to the parties and invite the parties to submit written comments on the report.
23.3 Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, if the Tribunal considers it necessary, any such expert shall, after delivery of his written report, participate in a hearing. At the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to question him.
24.1

In addition to the powers specified in these Rules and not in derogation of the mandatory rules of law applicable to the arbitration, the Tribunal shall have the power to:

a.order the correction of any contract, but only to the extent required to rectify any mistake which it determines to have been made by all the parties to that contract. This is subject to the condition that the proper law of the contract allows rectification of such contract;
b.upon the application of a party, allow one or more third parties to be joined in the arbitration, provided that such person is a party to the arbitration agreement, with the written consent of such third party, and thereafter make a single final award or separate awards in respect of all parties;
c.except as provided in Rules 28.2 and 29.5, extend or abbreviate any time limits provided by these Rules or by its directions;
d.conduct such enquiries as may appear to the Tribunal to be necessary or expedient;
e.order the parties to make any property or item available for inspection;
f.order the preservation, storage, sale or disposal of any property or item which is or forms part of the subject-matter of the dispute;
g.order any party to produce to the Tribunal and to the other parties for inspection, and to supply copies of, any document in their possession or control which the Tribunal considers relevant to the case and material to its outcome;
h.issue an award for unpaid costs of the arbitration;
i.direct any party to give evidence by affidavit or in any other form;
j.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;
k.order any party to provide security for legal or other costs in any manner the Tribunal thinks fit;
l.order any party to provide security for all or part of any amount in dispute in the arbitration;
m.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 any partial award or to attend any meeting or hearing, and to impose such sanctions as the Tribunal deems appropriate;
n.decide, where appropriate, any issue not expressly or impliedly raised in the submissions filed under Rule 17 provided such issue has been clearly brought to the notice of the other party and that other party has been given adequate opportunity to respond;
o.determine the law applicable to the arbitral proceedings; and
p.determine any claim of legal or other privilege.
25.1If a party objects to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the competence of SIAC to administer an arbitration before the Tribunal is appointed, the Registrar shall determine if reference of such an objection is to be made to the Court. If the Registrar so determines, the Court shall decide if it is prima facie satisfied that a valid arbitration agreement under the Rules may exist. The proceedings shall be terminated if the Court is not so satisfied. Any decision by the Registrar or the Court is without prejudice to the power of the Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.
25.2The 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.
25.3A plea that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be raised not later than in the Statement of Defence or in a Statement of Defence to a Counterclaim. A plea that the Tribunal is exceeding the scope of its jurisdiction shall be raised promptly after the Tribunal has indicated its intention to decide on the matter alleged to be beyond the scope of its jurisdiction. 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.
25.4The Tribunal may rule on a plea referred to in Rule 25.3 either as a preliminary question or in an award on the merits.
25.5A party may rely on a claim or defence for the purpose of a set-off to the extent permitted by the applicable law.
26.1The Tribunal may, at the request of a party, issue an order or an award granting an injunction or any other interim relief it deems appropriate. The Tribunal may order the party requesting interim relief to provide appropriate security in connection with the relief sought.
26.2A party in need of emergency interim relief prior to the constitution of the Tribunal may apply for such relief pursuant to the procedures set forth in Schedule 1.
26.3A request for interim relief made by a party to a judicial authority prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, or in exceptional circumstances thereafter, is not incompatible with these Rules.
27.1The Tribunal shall apply the rules of law designated by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. Failing such designation by the parties, the Tribunal shall apply the law which it determines to be appropriate.
27.2The Tribunal shall decide as amiable compositeur or ex aequo et bono only if the parties have expressly authorised the Tribunal to do so.
27.3In all cases, the Tribunal shall decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, if any, and shall take into account any usage of trade applicable to the transaction.
28.1The Tribunal shall, after consulting with the parties, declare the proceedings closed if it is satisfied that the parties have no further relevant and material evidence to produce or submission to make. The Tribunal may, on its own motion or upon application of a party but before any award is made, reopen the proceedings.
28.2Before making 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, as soon as practicable, 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 made by the Tribunal until it has been approved by the Registrar as to its form.
28.3The Tribunal may make separate awards on different issues at different times.
28.4If any arbitrator fails to cooperate in the making of the award, having been given a reasonable opportunity to do so, the remaining arbitrators shall proceed in his absence.
28.5Where there is more than one arbitrator, the Tribunal shall decide by a majority. Failing a majority decision, the presiding arbitrator alone shall make the award for the Tribunal.
28.6The award shall be delivered to the Registrar, who shall transmit certified copies to the parties upon the full settlement of the costs of arbitration.
28.7The 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.
28.8In 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.
28.9Subject to Rule 29 and Schedule 1, by agreeing to arbitration under these Rules, the parties undertake to carry out the award immediately and without delay, and they also irrevocably waive their rights to any form of appeal, review or recourse to any state court or other judicial authority insofar as such waiver may be validly made and the parties further agree that an award shall be final and binding on the parties from the date it is made.
28.10SIAC may publish any award with the names of the parties and other identifying information redacted.
29.1Within 30 days of receipt of an award, a party may, by written notice to the Registrar and to any other party, request the Tribunal to correct in the award any error in computation, any clerical or typographical error or any error of a similar nature. Any other party may comment on such request within 15 days of its receipt. If the Tribunal considers the request to be justified, it shall make the correction 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.
29.2The Tribunal may correct any error of the type referred to in Rule 29.1 on its own initiative within 30 days of the date of the award.
29.3Within 30 days of receipt of an award, a party may, by written notice to the Registrar and to any 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. Any other party may comment on such request within 15 days of its receipt. If the Tribunal considers the request to be justified, it shall make the additional award within 45 days of receipt of the request.
29.4Within 30 days of the receipt of an award, a party may, by written notice to the Registrar and to any other party, request that the Tribunal give an interpretation of the award. Any other party may comment on such request within 15 days of its receipt. If the Tribunal considers the request to be justified, it shall give the interpretation in writing within 45 days after the receipt of the request. The interpretation shall form part of the award.
29.5The Registrar may extend the time limits in this Rule.
29.6The provisions of Rule 28 shall apply in the same manner with the necessary or appropriate changes in relation to a correction of an award and to any additional award made.
30.1The Tribunal’s fees and SIAC’s fees shall be ascertained in accordance with the Schedule of Fees in force at the time of commencement of the arbitration. Alternative methods of determining the Tribunal’s fees may be agreed by the parties prior to the constitution of the Tribunal.
30.2The Registrar shall fix the advances on costs of the arbitration. Unless the Registrar directs otherwise, 50% of such advances shall be payable by the Claimant and the remaining 50% of such advances shall be payable by the Respondent. The Registrar may fix separate advances on costs for claims and counterclaims, respectively.
30.3Where 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. Such estimate may be based on the nature of the controversy and the circumstances of the case. This may be adjusted in light of such information as may subsequently become available.
30.4The Registrar may from time to time direct parties to make further advances towards costs of the arbitration incurred or to be incurred on behalf of or for the benefit of the parties.
30.5If a party fails to make the advances or deposits directed, the Registrar may, after consultation with the Tribunal and the parties, direct the Tribunal to suspend work and set a time limit on the expiry of which the relevant claims or counterclaims shall be considered as withdrawn without prejudice to the party reintroducing the same claims or counterclaims in another proceeding.
30.6Parties 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 or the Registrar may suspend its work, in whole or in part,should the advances or deposits directed under this Rule remain either wholly or in part unpaid. On the application of a party, the Tribunal may issue an award for unpaid costs pursuant to Rule 24(h).
30.7If 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.
30.8All advances shall be made to and held by SIAC. Any interest which may accrue on such deposits shall be retained by SIAC.
31.1The 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 the arbitration among the parties.
32.2

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.
32.1The fees of the Tribunal shall be fixed by the Registrar in accordance with the Schedule of Fees and the stage of the proceedings at which the arbitration ended. In exceptional circumstances, the Registrar may allow an additional fee over that prescribed in the Schedule of Fees to be paid.
32.2The Tribunal’s reasonable out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred and other allowances shall be reimbursed in accordance with the applicable Practice Note.
33.1The Tribunal shall have the authority to order in its award that all or a part of the legal or other costs of a party be paid by another party.
34.1SIAC, including the President, members of its Court, directors, officers, employees or any arbitrator, shall not be liable to any person for any negligence, act or omission in connection with any arbitration governed by these Rules.
34.2SIAC, including the President, members of its Court, directors, officers, employees or any arbitrator, shall not be under any obligation to make any statement in connection with any arbitration governed by these Rules. No party shall seek to make the President, any member of the Court, director, officer, employee or arbitrator act as a witness in any legal proceedings in connection with any arbitration governed by these Rules.
35.1The parties and the Tribunal shall at all times treat all matters relating to the proceedings and the award as confidential.
35.2

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 to enforce or challenge the award;
b.pursuant to the order of or a subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction;
c.for the purpose of pursuing or enforcing a legal right or claim;
d.in compliance with the provisions of the laws of any State which are binding on the party making the disclosure;
e.in compliance with the request or requirement of any regulatory body or other authority; or
f.pursuant to an order by the Tribunal on application by a party with proper notice to the other parties.
35.3Unless already submitted pursuant to Rule 4.2, the Respondent shall, within a period of time to be determined by the Tribunal, send to the Claimant a Statement of Defence setting out its full defence to the Statement of Claim, including without limitation, the facts and contentions of law on which it relies. The Statement of Defence shall also state any counterclaim, which shall comply with the requirements of Rule 17.2.
35.4 The Tribunal has the power to take appropriate measures, including issuing an order or award for sanctions or costs, if a party breaches the provisions of this Rule. 
36.1Subject to Rule 25.1, the decisions of the President, the Court and the Registrar with respect to all matters relating to an arbitration shall be conclusive and binding upon the parties and the Tribunal. The President, the Court and the Registrar shall not be required to provide reasons for such decisions.
36.2Subject to Rule 25.1, the parties shall be taken to have waived any right of appeal or review in respect of any decisions of the President, the Court and the Registrar to any state court or other judicial authority.
37.1A 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.
37.2In all matters not expressly provided for in these Rules, the President, the Court, 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 any award.
37.3The 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.

1. A party in need of emergency relief may, concurrent with or following the filing of a Notice of Arbitration but prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, make an application for emergency interim relief. The party shall notify the Registrar and all other parties in writing of the nature of the relief sought and the reasons why such relief is required on an emergency basis. The application shall also set forth the reasons why the party is entitled to such relief. Such notice must include a statement certifying that all other parties have been notified or an explanation of the steps taken in good faith to notify other parties. The application shall also be accompanied by payment of any fees set by the Registrar for proceedings pursuant to this Schedule 1.

 

2. The President shall, if he determines that SIAC should accept the application, seek to appoint an Emergency Arbitrator within one business day of receipt by the Registrar of such application and payment of any required fee.

 

3. Prior to accepting appointment, a prospective Emergency Arbitrator shall disclose to the Registrar any circumstance that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. Any challenge to the appointment of the Emergency Arbitrator must be made within one business day of the communication by the Registrar to the parties of the appointment of the Emergency Arbitrator and the circumstances disclosed.

 

4. An Emergency Arbitrator may not act as an arbitrator in any future arbitration relating to the dispute, unless agreed by the parties.

 

5. The Emergency Arbitrator shall, as soon as possible but in any event within two business days of appointment, establish a schedule for consideration of the application for emergency relief. Such schedule shall provide a reasonable opportunity to all parties to be heard, but may provide for proceedings by telephone conference or on written submissions as alternatives to a formal hearing. The Emergency Arbitrator shall have the powers vested in the Tribunal pursuant to these Rules, including the authority to rule on his own jurisdiction, and shall resolve any disputes over the application of this Schedule 1.

 

6. The Emergency Arbitrator shall have the power to order or award any interim relief that he deems necessary. The Emergency Arbitrator shall give reasons for his decision in writing. The Emergency Arbitrator may modify or vacate the interim award or order for good cause shown.

 

7. The Emergency Arbitrator shall have no further power to act after the Tribunal is constituted. The Tribunal may reconsider, modify or vacate the interim award or order of emergency relief issued by the Emergency Arbitrator. The Tribunal is not bound by the reasons given by the Emergency Arbitrator. Any order or award issued by the Emergency Arbitrator shall, in any event, cease to be binding if the Tribunal is not constituted within 90 days of such order or award or when the Tribunal makes a final award or if the claim is withdrawn.

 

8. Any interim award or order of emergency relief may be conditioned on provision by the party seeking such relief of appropriate security.

 

9. An order or award pursuant to this Schedule 1 shall be binding on the parties when rendered. By agreeing to arbitration under these Rules, the parties undertake to comply with such an order or award without delay.

 

10. The costs associated with any application pursuant to this Schedule 1 shall initially be apportioned by the Emergency Arbitrator, subject to the power of the Tribunal to determine finally the apportionment of such costs.

 

11. These Rules shall apply as appropriate to any proceeding pursuant to this Schedule 1, taking into account the inherent urgency of such a proceeding. The Emergency Arbitrator may decide in what manner these Rules shall apply as appropriate, and his decision as to such matters is final and not subject to appeal.

 

Article 1 – Repeal

 

The Domestic Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, 2nd Edition, 1 September 2002 (SIAC Domestic Arbitration Rules) are repealed.

 

Article 2 – Transitional Provision

 

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.

 

Article 3 – Summary Award

 

1. Upon the expiry of the time limit for the filing of Statement of Claim, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim under Rule 17 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 an affidavit stating the full facts and detailed grounds in support of it.

 

3. Within 21 days after service of the application and affidavit, the other party must, if it wishes to contest the application, file and serve an affidavit in opposition. The applicant must file any reply affidavit 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 the close of hearing unless extended by the Registrar.

 

6. Costs referred to in Rules 31, 32 and 33 of these Rules may be awarded in the discretion of the Tribunal.

 

7. Rules 28.2, 29.1 and 29.2 of these Rules shall apply, with the necessary or appropriate changes, to a summary award made under this Article.

 

8. Where the application is dismissed, the Tribunal shall proceed to continue with the arbitration.

 

Fill up the form to subscribe

VIJAYENDRA PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER

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 CHENG, COUNSEL

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

PIERRE BIENVENU, MEMBER

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.

YAS BANIFATEMI

YAS BANIFATEMI, MEMBER

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.

JOHN P. BANG

JOHN P. BANG, MEMBER

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, MEMBER

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

CATHERINE AMIRFAR, MEMBER

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.

JOSE AMADO

JOSE AMADO, MEMBER

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).

OLUFUNKE ADEKOYA

OLUFUNKE ADEKOYA, MEMBER

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, VICE PRESIDENT

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.

CAVINDER BULL

CAVINDER BULL, SC, VICE PRESIDENT

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 HOANG, DEPUTY COUNSEL

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 WU

CHEN WU, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

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 ZHAO

JAYDEN ZHAO, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

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 LEE, COUNSEL

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]

THEA ELYSSA VEGA, COUNSEL

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]

LIM SHI JEAN, COUNSEL (TEAM LEAD)

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, MEMBER

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 ANDREW SOBOTA

LUKE ANDREW SOBOTA, MEMBER

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).

CHONG YEE LEONG

CHONG YEE LEONG, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

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.

SIRAJ OMAR

SIRAJ OMAR, SC, MEMBER

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

GERALD SINGHAM, MEMBER

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.

RAJIV K LUTHRA

RAJIV K LUTHRA, MEMBER

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 MOSE

MICHAEL MOSER, MEMBER

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 F. REED

LUCY REED, PRESIDENT

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.

THAM SAI CHOY

THAM SAI CHOY, MEMBER

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 LOW, COUNSEL

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]

ARIEL YE

ARIEL YE, MEMBER

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.

GLORIA LIM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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.

KEVIN NASH, REGISTRAR

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 BITKIVSKAJA

ALIONA BITKIVSKAJA, COUNSEL

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 WU, COUNSEL (TEAM LEAD)

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 WANTAH

KENDISTA WANTAH, COUNSEL

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

NIGEL BLACKABY KC, MEMBER

Nigel Blackaby QC is a partner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer