Singaporean Court Declines to Revisit SIAC Registrar’s Administrative Decision

On 25 February 2025, the Singapore High Court published its decision in DMZ v DNA, originating Application No 1222 of 2024 [2025] SGHC 31. This decision is another pro-arbitration ruling from the jurisdiction, further signalling Singapore’s judicial support for the arbitration process.  

What was the case about?

The presiding judge, Justice Hri Kumar Nair, refused DMZ’s challenge of an administrative decision made by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Registrar (the Registrar). DMZ sought to challenge the Registrar’s decision on the ‘commencement date’ of a number of consolidated SIAC arbitrations relating to contracts for the sale of oil. Singaporean law was the governing law of the arbitration agreements.

The Registrar’s decision under appeal was itself a revisiting of the question of the commencement date, following a request from DNA who had initiated the arbitration. DNA argued that all the relevant requirements had been complied with by an earlier date than that originally stated by the Registrar, so that earlier date should be the ‘commencement date’ for the purpose of the 2016 SIAC Rules. After hearing from both parties, the Registrar agreed with DNA’s argument and amended the commencement date. The position on the commencement date was particularly important as limitation issues were in play for DNA’s claim.

DMZ’s application was dismissed and, notably, costs were ordered to be paid on an indemnity basis as the court considered the application to be an abuse of process.

What was the court’s reasoning?

In the court’s consideration of whether it could revisit the Registrar’s decision, it analysed the application of the 2016 SIAC Rules. DMZ had argued that the Registrar’s decision was unlawful as it was outside the authority of the SIAC Rules, or alternatively in breach of the SIAC Rules, or made ‘arbitrarily, capriciously and/or unreasonably’.

DMZ argued that a contractual relationship existed between the arbitrating parties and the Registrar, requiring it to comply with the SIAC Rules. The court accepted this argument.

The court found, however, that the appeal to it had been brought in breach of the SIAC Rules, in particular Rule 40.2:

Save in respect of Rule 16.1 and Rule 28.1, the parties waive 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.

The court referenced existing case law, including Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd [2019] 1 SLR 732, which it stated ‘upholds the policy of minimal curial intervention’ in arbitration proceedings. Referencing the Singapore Court of Appeal in COT v COU and others and other appeals [2023] SGCA 31, the court further stated that it should only intervene in an arbitration where expressly provided in the International Arbitration Act 1994 and quoted the Court of Appeal in Cot, as follows:

‘The policy of minimal curial intervention in arbitral proceedings is well settled in our arbitration jurisprudence … This policy is engendered by considerations of party autonomy and the finality of the arbitral process, dictating that the courts should act with a view to “respecting and preserving the autonomy of the arbitral process” … Thus, curial intervention is warranted only on limited grounds.’

The court found that DMZ had no basis to invoke the court’s jurisdiction and that, even if the Registrar was wrong, that did not give the claimant a right to ask the court to intervene and overturn that decision.

DMZ had further argued that the Registrar’s initial decision was binding on it and could not be revisited. The court disagreed, holding that a court or a tribunal is the master of its own internal procedure and is entitled to reconsider administrative or procedural decisions. There is no reason, the court said, why an arbitral institution such as SIAC would not be entitled to do the same and the SIAC Rules did not prevent this.

However, that does not mean the court may never reconsider a procedural decision by an administrating institution. The court stated that the Registrar’s determination is not unimpeachable and that the ‘Registrar must undoubtedly exercise that power in a lawful manner and in accordance with the SIAC Rules’.

What does this decision mean for parties to a SIAC arbitration?

The court’s decision demonstrates the pro-arbitration stance taken by the Singaporean courts and provides further helpful guidance that administrative and procedural decisions of arbitral institutions will only be revisited in exceptional circumstances.

Singapore courts will respect decisions taken by the SIAC Registrar in accordance with the body’s rules and respect its internal processes, including the revisiting of its own decisions.

However, it is notable here that the SIAC Rules include a rule excluding the authority of the Singapore courts to revisit its procedural decisions, and not all arbitral rules have an equivalent provision.

Our expertise

With offices in many of the world’s major arbitration centres, including London, Paris, Geneva, Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore, we are ideally placed to work with you both to prevent and to resolve disputes as they arise, whatever the law, language, rules, industry sector, or subject matter of that dispute may be. Our dedicated multicultural and multilingual specialists conduct arbitrations under both civil and common law systems and regularly act in arbitration-related domestic court proceedings.

Whether you are a state, a state-owned entity, a sovereign wealth fund, a corporate, a sports federation or authority, private business or individual, our strategically focused specialists will work alongside you through every aspect of any arbitration. Please contact Thomas Snider, Peter Brabant or your usual Charles Russell Speechlys LLP contact if you would like to get in touch.