When the SIAC Rules of 2016 were introduced, they featured first-of-kind game changing traits such as the expedited procedure and the emergency arbitrator. Testament to the forward-thinking nature of the SIAC, many global institutions followed suit with similar changes to their rules. In 2025, the SIAC once again showed why it is a front runner in arbitration institutions with the SIAC Rules of 2025 introducing several new features and enhancements aimed at improving efficiency, flexibility, and user experience in arbitration proceedings. We share our insights on the top three changes in this update.
1. Time & Costs Efficiency: Fast Track Procedures
(a) Enhanced Expedited Procedure – 6 month timeline for claims between S$1m to S$10 million
(b) New Streamlined Procedure – 3 month timeline for claims below S$1 million
The biggest bugbear with arbitration in recent years has been the time and costs involved in getting an award, particularly if the case is a straightforward or low-value one. The previous SIAC Rules in 2016 saw the introduction of an Expedited Procedure, at the time, a first of its kind procedure in arbitration to get an award within 6 months if the dispute fit certain criteria such as claim value not exceeding S$6 million. The claim cap for using the Expedited Procedure has now increased to S$10 million under the new rules.
The feedback from the market was, and is, quite clear – quicker and more cost-effective forms of resolution are needed. The SIAC has once again shown its finger on the pulse with the introduction of the Streamlined Procedure. Unlike the Expedited Procedure, which was an opt-in mechanism if certain criteria were met, the Streamlined Procedure applies by default to disputes not exceeding S$1 million (approximately US$740,000).
Efficiency is clearly the key objective of the Streamlined Procedure, with the Tribunal being required to issue a final award within 3 months of its constitution. Unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal, the Streamlined Procedure also does away with document production, witness evidence and evidentiary hearings – steps which can add disproportionate amount of time and costs to the process. In conjunction with this more efficient procedure, the SIAC has devised a lower fee structure for the Streamlined Procedure. Based on our calculations on the basis of a S$1 million claim under the 2016 and 2025 Rules, a Singapore party using the Streamlined Procedure can save close to S$30,000.
Comment: what about higher value straightforward claims? The new rules seek to address the sense of disproportionality felt by users pursuing lower value claims through arbitration and creates a fast-track procedure for such claims. However, this procedure is still not available for higher value claims that are straightforward, for example, non-payment or debt claims from the sale of goods or services, unless the parties involved have agreed to use the Streamlined Procedure.
2. Crisis Situations: Improved Emergency Arbitrator Procedure
In crisis situations, for example when there is a risk of dissipation of funds or destruction of evidence, arbitrations might not facilitate the elements of speed and surprise needed to prevent such harmful actions. The Emergency Arbitrator procedure has been updated in two significant ways. First, an Emergency Arbitrator can be appointed within 24 hours and make appropriate interim orders even before a Notice of Arbitration is served.
Second, an Emergency Arbitrator has the power to order a Protective Preliminary Order (“PPO”) upon an ex parte application by a party (i.e., without notice to the other party), for emergency relief where the element of surprise is key to the objective; for example, to prevent siphoning of funds or preserving assets. The procedure is extremely swift: the PPO application is to be determined within 24 hours of the Emergency Arbitrator’s appointment, and the order expires after 14 days. The window of surprise is a very narrow one – within 12 hours of receiving the PPO, the applicant is required to deliver all the case papers to all parties (failing which the PPO expires within 3 days). To mitigate against the possibility of injustice to the party against whom the PPO is sought, the Emergency Arbitrator has to provide any party against whom the PPO is applied with an opportunity to present its case at the earliest practicable time.
Comment: involvement of national courts still critical. The radical decision to introduce ex-parte applications for interim relief which are often used to obtain freezing orders appear to be designed to reduce reliance on national courts. However, these tribunal-mandated orders may inevitably require national court sanction, particularly when directed against third parties holding the asset on behalf of the defendant, such as a bank or warehouse operator. Given their novelty, ex parte interim arbitration orders could possibly face challenges in the national courts.
3. Standalone Issues: Preliminary Determination
The 2025 SIAC Rules introduce through Rule 46, a power for the tribunal to make preliminary binding determinations on issues of fact or law (within 90 days of filing of an application for preliminary determination). In arbitration, not every issue requires extensive disclosure, witness evidence or trial – the preliminary determination processes might be useful in addressing discrete points that do not require a trial examination such as standalone points of law or time bars. This could allow parties to narrow the issues in dispute, possibly saving costs and encouraging settlement.
The power to make a Preliminary Determination is distinct from the Rule 47 power in respect of early dismissal of claims that are manifestly without merit or outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction. That power existed under the 2016 SIAC Rules as well.
Comment: quicker results but will enforcement be an issue? Both mechanisms that facilitate an efficient running of an arbitration, while laudable, still carry a question as to whether they would be accepted by courts where enforcement is sought. This question arises because the losing party might argue that it was prevented from fully presenting its case, as an exception to the principles of enforcement under the NY Convention. Enforcement concerns continue to plague arbitration and might militate against the robust adoption of such preliminary determination mechanisms.
Conclusion: Quicker, faster and more efficient, but are enforcement challenges lurking?
The challenge of any new feature of arbitration introduced in the interests of efficiency (such as fast-tracked or preliminary determination procedures) will always be with balancing it against enforcement challenges if a losing party is to plead that it wasn’t given a chance to present its case fully.
The 2025 SIAC Rules offer potential claimants a more flexible, efficient, and technologically advanced arbitration process. Overall, by leveraging these new features, a claimant can potentially resolve its dispute more quickly and cost-effectively while maintaining the SIAC’s well-known standards of fairness and enforceability.