Singapore is actively taking steps to continuously develop and reform its international arbitration regime. This aligns with the recent enactment of the UK's 2025 Arbitration Act to modernize its own arbitration law, with the Singapore Ministry of Law demonstrating its commitment to institutional improvement by launching a public consultation on the international arbitration framework and the Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA).

The 2025 Arbitration Act, which received Royal Assent in the UK on February 24th, encompasses a series of reforms to the UK's 1996 Arbitration Act, aiming to modernize it. Following these latest UK reforms, the Singapore Ministry of Law initiated a public consultation on March 21st, seeking public feedback on eight key issues related to the international arbitration regime and the IAA.

The eight issues covered in this public consultation are as follows:

Whether the court should be empowered to order a successful party in an application to set aside an arbitral award to bear the costs of the arbitration proceedings.
Whether a separate costs regime should apply to unsuccessful applications to set aside an arbitral award.
Whether a requirement for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a High Court decision on an application to set aside an arbitral award should be introduced.
Whether the time limit for an application to set aside an arbitral award should be shortened.
Whether a right of appeal on a point of law should be permitted.
How the law applicable to the arbitration agreement should be determined.
Whether challenges to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction should proceed by way of appeal or rehearing.
Whether the arbitral tribunal’s power to make summary awards should be codified in the IAA.
Issues 6 through 8 were recently amended by the UK's 2025 Arbitration Act, and this article will focus on discussing these three issues.

Issue 6: Determining the Law Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement

Prior to the UK's 2025 Arbitration Act, the common law position established by the UK Supreme Court in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 (the Enka Judgment) governed the determination of the law applicable to the arbitration agreement in the UK.

The Supreme Court held that in the absence of an express choice of law, there is a presumption that the law governing the arbitration agreement is the same as the law governing the main contract, subject to exceptions where there are good reasons to conclude otherwise. Where there is no express or implied agreement on the law governing the main contract, the law most closely connected with the arbitration agreement, which is generally the seat of arbitration, would govern the arbitration agreement.

Currently, the way Singapore law determines the law applicable to the arbitration agreement is similar to the pre-Enka Judgment UK common law position.

However, the UK's 2025 Arbitration Act has changed the existing UK common law position by explicitly stating that the law of the seat of arbitration will govern the arbitration agreement unless otherwise expressly agreed by the parties. The UK Law Commission recommended this change, considering that more arbitration agreements would be subject to English law.

In its public consultation paper, the Singapore Ministry of Law refers to this change introduced by the UK's 2025 Arbitration Act and seeks views on whether Singapore should (a) maintain the Singapore common law approach, (b) enact statutory provisions in the IAA on choice of law, or (c) adopt the position of the UK's 2025 Arbitration Act.

The law applicable to the arbitration agreement is of great importance, and given Singapore’s pro-arbitration stance and its position as a leading international arbitration hub, reform of the Singapore international arbitration regime on this important issue (whether option (b) or (c) is adopted) is likely to be welcomed.

Issue 7: Challenges to the Arbitral Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

Section 10 of the IAA addresses challenges to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction before the Singapore courts. Currently, under Singapore law, such jurisdictional challenges are determined by the Singapore courts by way of a de novo hearing, meaning a complete rehearing. This was also the position in the UK under Section 67 of the UK’s 1996 Arbitration Act prior to the 2025 UK Arbitration Act.

The UK’s 2025 Arbitration Act has limited the scope of jurisdictional challenges where the arbitral tribunal has already ruled on its jurisdiction and the challenging party participated in the arbitration proceedings. In such circumstances, the English courts will not allow the party challenging jurisdiction to raise new grounds of objection or new evidence that could have been raised with reasonable diligence before the arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, the evidence that was before the arbitral tribunal will generally not be reheard by the English courts.

In its public consultation paper, the Singapore Ministry of Law refers to the change in the UK position in this area under the UK’s 2025 Arbitration Act and the rationale for the change (i.e., that de novo hearings cause delays, increase or waste costs, and unfairly benefit the challenging party) and seeks views on whether the Singapore courts should continue to determine challenges to an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction by way of a de novo hearing.

Reforming the existing regime under the Singapore IAA concerning jurisdictional challenges before the Singapore courts would be consistent with Singapore’s pro-arbitration stance. A more limited form of review is expected to reduce or deter clearly unmeritorious jurisdictional challenges, thereby promoting certainty and finality.

Issue 8: Arbitral Tribunal’s Power to Make Summary Awards

The IAA does not contain a provision expressly empowering an arbitral tribunal to make summary awards. The public consultation paper notes that the IAA lacks such a provision despite major international arbitration rules conferring some form of power on arbitral tribunals to make summary awards.

Prior to the UK’s 2025 Arbitration Act, the UK’s 1996 Arbitration Act also did not contain a provision expressly empowering an arbitral tribunal to make summary awards. However, the UK’s 2025 Arbitration Act now expressly provides that an arbitral tribunal has the power to dispose of on a summary basis a claim, defence or issue that has no real prospect of success. This is a default provision, and parties are free to agree otherwise.

The Singapore Ministry of Law seeks views on whether the IAA should be amended to expressly provide that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal has the power to make an award on a summary basis in respect of any issue, claim or defence (or any part thereof) that is in dispute.

Notably, the public consultation paper does not suggest an express standard for summary disposal, unlike the UK’s 2025 Arbitration Act, which uses the standard of “no real prospect of success.” This may be because the “no real prospect of success” standard appears to be a lower threshold than the summary disposal standards provided in most major international arbitration rules. For example, the ICC Rules, SIAC Rules, and LCIA Rules all expressly include a mechanism for summary disposal on the basis that a claim or defence is “manifestly without legal merit.” As most parties would agree to apply these international rules in their arbitrations, the (higher) standards set out in the relevant international rules would apply instead. However, in the case of ad hoc arbitrations, it would be necessary to introduce a standard for summary disposal in the IAA.

Amending the IAA to expressly empower arbitral tribunals to make summary awards could be a positive development that addresses any due process concerns on the part of arbitral tribunals.

This public consultation demonstrates Singapore’s continued support for international arbitration and its commitment to developing and modernizing its legal framework in line with best international practices. These efforts by Singapore are expected to further solidify its position as an international arbitration hub and provide users with more efficient and predictable arbitration services.

[Copyright (c) Global Economic Times. All Rights Reserved.]