KluwerArbitration

Document information 5. Starting the Arbitration (SIAC Rules 1 to 4)

5.01 This chapter begins with a consideration of which version of the SIAC Rules should apply to an
Publication arbitration and the meaning of certain defined terms (Rule 1). The SIAC notice provisions (Rule 2)
A Guide to the SIAC are addressed in part B. The matters to be covered by a claimant in a Notice of Arbitration in order
Arbitration Rules to start an arbitration (Rule 3) are then covered in part C. Finally, the requirements for a valid
(Second Edition) Response to a Notice of Arbitration (Rule 4) are explained in part D. Unless otherwise stated, all
references to the SIAC Rules are to the 2016 version of the rules.
Organization
Singapore International
A. Rule 1—Scope of Application and
Arbitration Centre Interpretation
5.02 Rule 1 defines when the SIAC Rules will be applicable to a dispute.
Entry into force
30 June 2016 1. Rule 1.1
Where the parties have agreed to refer their disputes to SIAC for arbitration or to
Bibliographic arbitration in accordance with the SIAC Rules, the parties shall be deemed to
reference have agreed that the arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to and
'5. Starting the Arbitration administered by SIAC in accordance with these Rules.
(SIAC Rules 1 to 4)', in John
Choong , Mark Mangan , et 2. Rule 1.2
al., A Guide to the SIAC
Arbitration Rules (Second These Rules shall come into force on 1 August 2016 and, unless otherwise
Edition), 2nd edition
agreed by the parties, shall apply to any arbitration which is commenced on or
(© Oxford University Press;
Oxford University Press
after that date.
2018) pp. 78 - 98 P 79

a. Parties must agree to the application of the SIAC Rules

5.03 Consent is a pre-condition of any arbitration. Thus, parties must agree to refer a dispute to
SIAC for the SIAC Rules to apply. Where there is such an agreement, the version of the SIAC Rules
in force at the time the arbitration commences will apply to the dispute, unless the parties have
agreed otherwise. (1)
5.04 The SIAC model arbitration clause provides that any dispute shall be determined in
accordance with the SIAC Rules 'for the time being in force'. The Singapore High Court considered
the meaning of those (rather imprecise) words in its 2010 decision in Car & Cars Pte Ltd v
Volkswagen AG and another. (2) The High Court held that they refer to the SIAC Rules in force at the
time of the commencement of the arbitration, not when the contract was concluded, which might be
a possible interpretation. (3) The High Court reasoned:

As a matter of construction, it may be fairly argued that the employment of

general phraseology referring to rules 'for the time being in force' points to rules
that presently cannot be precisely identified. Were the intention to refer to rules
existing at the date of the contract, there would not have been need for the
general words. The particular set of rules could easily have been identified by
name. (4)

5.05 The High Court recently affirmed the decision in Car & Cars in AQZ v ARA. (5) Prakash J held
as follows.

There is a presumption that reference to rules of a particular tribunal in an

arbitration clause refers to such rules as are applicable at the date of
commencement of arbitration and not at the date of contract, provided that the
rules contain mainly procedural provisions. (6)

1
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 5.06 Prakash J confirmed that this presumption arises even if the parties have not stipulated in their
arbitration agreement that the applicable rules shall be those 'for the time being in force'. Thus, in
the absence of express words to the contrary, it is presumed that parties intend to have their
arbitrations conducted under the rules in force on the date the arbitration commences. (7)
b. Pathological clauses
5.07 As already mentioned, the SIAC Rules apply if that is agreed by the parties.
P 80
5.08 Occasionally, questions arise as to whether the parties have in fact agreed to the application
of the SIAC Rules or some other form of arbitration, or whether there is any agreement at all on how
their disputes will be resolved. Uncertain arbitration clauses are referred to as 'pathological', a
concept recently well described by Assistant Registrar Jordan Tan in HKL Group Ltd v Rizq
International Holdings Pte Ltd thus: (8)

But, in a case where the arbitration clause, although contractually valid, is

defective and by this I mean that after applying the general principles of
contractual interpretation, or after rectification as the case may be, the court is
unable to discern the meaning of that clause either in part or entirely, that clause
is said to be pathological. There is no magic in that term. It merely describes the
clause as one which is defective (see Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom
Technology Ltd [2009] 3 SLR(R) 936 ('Insigma') at [37]). Whether that clause
may or may not be upheld depends on the nature and extent of its pathology.

5.09 When arbitral institutions, arbitrators, and indeed local courts are faced with pathological
clauses, Singapore law encourages an interpretation of the clause which gives effect, if possible, to
the parties' (apparent) intention to arbitrate their disputes. By way of illustration, as explained in
Chapter 1, the Singapore High Court and Court of Appeal in the well-known Insigma case upheld a
hybrid arbitration agreement (which are not recommended) which provided that SIAC shall resolve
any disputes in accordance with the rules of another arbitral institution, namely the ICC. The Court of
Appeal in Insigma reasoned that where parties have evinced a clear intention to settle disputes by
arbitration, the court should give effect to such intention 'even if certain aspects of the agreement
may be ambiguous, inconsistent, incomplete or lacking in certain particulars'. (9)
5.10 The Singapore High Court in the aforementioned HKL Group v Rizq case was faced with an
arbitration clause which provided for any disputes to be 'settled by the Arbitration Committee at
Singapore under the rules of The International Chamber of Commerce …'. The parties took different
views as to how the clause should be interpreted. Rizq argued that the court proceedings should be
stayed and the dispute arbitrated in accordance with the ICC Rules under the administration of
SIAC (as was allowed in Insigma). HKL, however, argued that the High Court should remain seized
of the matter as the arbitration agreement was so defective as to be inoperable. Neither party
appears to have made the more compelling argument that the parties had made an imperfect but
nonetheless potentially enforceable reference to arbitration under the ICC Rules to be administered
by the ICC. That is, the words 'Arbitration Committee' could have been interpreted as an intended
reference to an 'arbitral tribunal'. In the result however, Jordan Tan AR accepted submissions on
behalf of Rizq that SIAC could administer the arbitration under the ICC Rules. (10)
5.11 Misspelt or inaccurate references to arbitral institutions or references to non-existent arbitral
institutions are routinely interpreted purposively by tribunals and courts. Thus, the following
formulations have all been accepted as effective (albeit mistaken) references to the ICC: 'the official
Chamber of Commerce in Paris, France'; 'the Arbitration Commission of the Chamber of
Commerce and Industry of Paris'; and 'a Commission of Arbitration of
P 83
French Chamber of Commerce, Paris'. (11) Other arbitral institutions have similarly upheld
inaccurate arbitration agreements. For instance, arbitration clauses which referred to the
'International Trade Arbitration Organization in Zurich' (12) and 'international trade association
organization in Zurich' (13) were interpreted as effective references to the Zurich Chamber of
Commerce.
5.12 National courts and arbitral institutions have also brushed over an apparent mistaken
reference to a 'court' in an otherwise clear reference to arbitration. Thus, a German court interpreted
a reference to 'the International Court of Arbitration (Internationales Schiedsgericht) in Austria' as a
reference to the International Arbitration Centre of the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber. (14)
The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Geneva has accepted jurisdiction in circumstances
where the arbitration clause referred to the 'Arbitration Court at the Swiss Chamber for Foreign
(15)

2
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 Trade in Geneva' (15) and the 'Arbitration Court in Geneva working besides the Swiss Chamber of
Commerce'. (16)
5.13 The author of this chapter is familiar with a case in which a sole arbitrator was asked to
interpret an arbitration agreement providing for 'Arbitration in the Courts of Singapore as per rules
of SIA'. While the claimant argued that the parties had intended to refer to the rules of 'SIAC'; the
respondent maintained that the dispute should be resolved under the GAFTA (17) arbitration rules as
the parties had expressly incorporated GAFTA terms into their contract. With neither party having
argued that the clause referred to the arbitration rules of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators
('SIArb'), the claimant's submission that the parties had intended to refer their disputes to SIAC was
upheld. In effect, the expression 'Arbitration in the courts of Singapore as per rules of SIA' was
interpreted as an intended reference to 'Arbitration in the tribunals of Singapore as per rules of
SIAC'. As Lord Hoffmann explained in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich
Building Society, a court or arbitrator may conclude that the parties used the wrong words or syntax
in their contract (or arbitration agreement):

The 'rule' that words should be given their 'natural and ordinary meaning' reflects
the common sense proposition that we do not easily accept that people have
made linguistic mistakes, particularly in formal documents. On the other hand, if
one would nevertheless conclude from the background that something must
have gone wrong with the language, the law does not require judges to attribute
to the parties an intention which they plainly could not have had. (18)

5.14 Finally, as explained in part A of Chapter 17, parties should be careful not to inadvertently
agree to ad hoc arbitration when their intention is to provide for institutional arbitration. By way of
illustration, in Taizhou Haopu Investment Co Ltd v Wicor Holding AG, (19) the Taizhou Intermediate
People's Court recently refused to recognize and enforce an ICC arbitration award on the grounds
that the parties had only agreed to arbitrate under the ICC Rules. The Taizhou Court held that it
could not be inferred that the parties had agreed to arbitration administered by the ICC simply by
their having agreed to the ICC Rules. Thus, an award administered by the ICC was declared
inconsistent with the parties' agreement.
5.15 In response, SIAC amended Rule 1.1 in 2016 to make clear that an agreement 'to arbitration in
accordance with the SIAC Rules' is sufficient to invoke the authority of SIAC to administer the
arbitration.
c. Mandatory law
5.16 Rule 1.1 of the 2010 and 2013 version of the SIAC Rules provides that the application of the
SIAC Rules is subject to any contrary 'mandatory provision of the applicable law of the arbitration
from which the parties cannot derogate'.
5.17 This statement is omitted from the 2016 SIAC Rules. Nonetheless, the principle remains that
the rules of arbitration and the terms of the parties' arbitration agreement must yield to any
applicable mandatory laws from which they cannot derogate. (20)
5.18 There is no authoritative list of mandatory provisions in Singapore arbitration law from which
the parties or an arbitral institution cannot derogate. It is thus necessary to consider each provision
of the IAA and the AA on its terms to see if it is mandatory or subject to the contrary agreement of
the parties.
5.19 By way of illustration, Rule 16.4 of the 2016 SIAC Rules provides that the SIAC Court's
decision on a challenge to an arbitrator is 'final and not subject to appeal'. Singapore law, however,
provides that a decision on an arbitrator challenge may be appealed within 30 days of a party's
receiving notice of the decision. (21) An argument could be made that this is a mandatory provision
of Singapore law from which the parties cannot derogate by way of contract, and that it therefore
prevails over Rule 16.4 of the 2016 SIAC Rules to the extent of any inconsistency. (22)
5.20 In addition to the laws of the seat of the arbitration, SIAC tribunals may need to consider other
mandatory laws such as those of a party's place of incorporation or the law of the likely place of
enforcement. (23)

3. Rule 1.3
In these Rules—

'Award' includes a partial, interim, or final award and an award of an Emergency

Arbitrator;

3
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 '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;
'Emergency Arbitrator' means an arbitrator appointed in accordance with para 3
of Sch 1;
'Practice Notes' means the guidelines published by the Registrar from time to
time to supplement, regulate, and implement these Rules;
'President' means the President of the Court and includes any Vice President
and the Registrar;
'Registrar' means the Registrar of the Court and includes any Deputy Registrar;
'Rules' means the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration
Centre (6th Edition, 1 August 2016);
'SIAC' means the Singapore International Arbitration Centre; and
'Tribunal' includes a sole arbitrator or all the arbitrators where more than one
arbitrator is appointed.

Any pronoun in these Rules shall be understood to be gender-neutral. Any singular noun shall be
understood to refer to the plural in the appropriate circumstances.
d. Defined terms in the 2016 SIAC Rules
5.21 Rule 1.3 of the 2016 SIAC Rules defines a number of terms used in the 2016 SIAC Rules,
which are for the most part self-explanatory. (24)
5.22 Notably, the definition of an 'Award' in the 2007 and 2010 SIAC Rules states that it is a
decision 'on the substance of the dispute'. (25) This expression is omitted from the definitions of an
'Award' in the 2013 and 2016 SIAC Rules. This appears to have been done in order to ensure that a
decision of an emergency arbitrator, which can only determine a request for interim relief, can be
characterized as an award. Indeed, the 2016 SIAC Rules for the first time expressly provide that an
award can be 'interim'. (26) As explained in paras [14.02 to 14.07], however, as a matter of
Singapore law, an award must be a decision on the substance of the dispute. (27) Singapore
legislation also expressly excludes a decision regarding a request for interim relief from the
definition of an award. (28) It is thus open to question whether a decision of an emergency arbitrator
(or, for that matter, an award by an ordinary tribunal which deals solely with a request for interim
relief or an award which only relates to the tribunal's jurisdiction) can be considered an award under
Singapore law notwithstanding the terms of Rule 1.3. (29)
5.23 It is also noteworthy that the 'President' is defined to include the Vice President and the
Registrar (with the 'Registrar' in turn defined to include the Deputy Registrar). Thus, certain functions
under the SIAC Rules entrusted to the President of the SIAC Court, such as
P 84
the appointment of one of more arbitrators under Rules 9 to 11, can be performed by the Registrar
and Deputy Registrar.
5.24 Rule 1.3 provides that any pronoun used in the SIAC Rules, which in the third person tend to
take the masculine (ie 'his') or gender neutral (ie 'it') form, shall be understood to be gender-neutral.
Singapore arbitration legislation referenced in this book follows a similar approach.
e. Amendments to the 2007 and 2010 SIAC Rules
5.25 As explained in the first edition of this book, Rules 1.3 and 1.4 of the 2013 SIAC Rules amend
the 2010 and 2007 SIAC Rules, respectively, to ensure that the persons tasked with supervisory
functions under the 2013 rules (ie SIAC Court members, including the President of the SIAC Court)
could perform the equivalent roles under the 2007 and 2010 SIAC Rules. For instance, the SIAC
Court was empowered to perform the tasks of the SIAC Board of Directors under earlier versions of
the rules.

B. Rule 2—Notice and Calculation of Periods of

Time
5.26 Rule 2 stipulates the means for achieving service of documents during a SIAC arbitration and
how periods of time are to be calculated under the Rules.

4
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 1. Rule 2.1
For the purposes of these Rules, any notice, communication or proposal shall be
in writing. Any such notice, communication or proposal may be delivered by
hand, registered post or courier service, or transmitted by any form of electronic
communication (including electronic mail and facsimile), or delivered by any
other appropriate means that provides a record of its delivery. Any notice,
communication or proposal shall be deemed to have been received if it is
delivered: (i) to the addressee personally or to its authorized representative, (ii)
to the addressee's 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 after reasonable efforts, none of these can be
found, then at the addressee's last-known residence or place of business.

5.27 The SIAC Rules provide a degree of flexibility to the parties for effecting service. Rule 2.1
allows service to be achieved by any means that provides a record of delivery to the other party. (30)
Communications may be sent by hand, registered post, courier, or any form of electronic
communication, including email.
5.28 The requirement in the 2010 and 2013 SIAC Rules that any notice must be in writing is omitted
from the 2016 SIAC Rules. As noted in the first edition of this book, not every communication in an
arbitration must be in writing in order for it to be effective. For instance, parties can communicate
their positions orally in a hearing. The delivery of such communications may be recorded in writing
in a transcript of the hearing, subsequent correspondence, or in an award rendered by the tribunal.
P 85
The options available for effecting service
5.29 While a party can effect service through any means which provides a record of its actual
delivery to the other party, Rule 2.1 prescribes five methods of deemed service. First, there is
effective service if a party gives notice to the addressee personally or, pursuant to modification
introduced in the 2016 SIAC Rules, to the party's authorized representative. (31) It is a question of
fact whether a representative is authorized to accept service of documents during an arbitration, or,
more crucially, at the commencement of an arbitration. As a matter of Singapore law, once notice
has been given that a party wishes to receive communications through its counsel, the party should
no longer be served directly subject to limited exceptions. (32)
5.30 Second, the SIAC Rules allow a party to serve documents on another party at his or her or its
habitual residence, place of business, or at an address designated by that party. This is likely to
include a designated email address.
5.31 Third, the parties can agree on an address which may be used to effect service. The parties
can specify this in their contract or during the arbitration.
5.32 The fourth option available for effecting service under the 2010, 2013, and 2016 SIAC Rules
(but not expressly available for arbitrations governed by the 2007 SIAC Rules) is to deliver
communications 'according to the practice of the parties in prior dealings'. This would include
delivery to a previously used address, including successfully used email addresses. (33) It could also
conceivably extend to novel methods of communication used previously by the parties, such as
through an intermediary.
5.33 Relying on a practice used in the parties' prior dealings to achieve service poses little risk
when the receiving party is participating in the proceedings and acknowledges receipt of delivered
communications. It is potentially more problematic, however, if the receiving party is not
participating in the arbitration and subsequently denies the validity of the SIAC arbitration
agreement. Under the terms of the New York Convention, courts may refuse to recognize or enforce
an award if the party against whom an award is invoked 'was not given proper notice of the
appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present
his case'. (34) A party which relies on prior practice to evidence delivery of a communication in
circumstances where the receiving party subsequently denies receipt or knowledge of its contents
and the applicability of the SIAC Rules (35) could, depending on the
P 87
significance of the communication and the applicable law, risk compromising any resulting award.
Thus, rather than relying on the SIAC Rules alone in such circumstances, a party may wish to
consider what would constitute effective service under the law of the place of incorporation of the
receiving party. (36)

5
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 5.34 While parties to an arbitration in Singapore are not subject to the Singapore Rules of Court,
Singapore court procedures for service may provide some guidance in an arbitration context.
Personal service under the Singapore Rules of Court is effected by leaving a copy of the document
on the defendant if he is an individual and at the registered address (or by registered post) if it is a
company. (37) As a general guide, it has been suggested that good personal service of court
documents requires a copy of the document to be handed over to the correct person; the server to
tell the person what the document contains; and the server to leave the document in that person's
possession or control. (38)
5.35 The fifth option available under the 2010, 2013, and 2016 SIAC Rules for effecting service is to
send a notice to the addressee's last-known residence or place of business. Before doing so, the
sending party must first use 'reasonable efforts' to confirm whether the other places for service
available in Rule 2.1(i) to (iv) 'can be found'. Such 'reasonable efforts' (39) could include a
documented search of the internet, attempts to use previously successful methods of
communication, and/or a search of the relevant company's register. (40)
5.36 In addition to such 'reasonable efforts', a party seeking to rely on Rule 2.1(v) to effect service
should, for the reasons explained in paragraph [5.35], consider whether such a method of service is
consistent with the rules for effecting service at the place of incorporation of the intended recipient.
5.37 Finally, unlike a tribunal governed by, say, the 2014 LCIA Arbitration Rules (LCIA Rules
(2014)), (41) a SIAC tribunal does not have an express power to stipulate any alternative means of
effecting service beyond those in the SIAC Rules. Further, while the parties can agree an address
for service under 2016 SIAC Rule 2.1(iii), the SIAC Rules do not expressly provide that the parties
can agree to a method of service different to those prescribed by the SIAC Rules. Nonetheless, any
such agreement is likely to be considered an acceptable and binding manifestation of party
autonomy, which is respected under the SIAC Rules and Singapore law.

2. Rule 2.2
Any notice, communication or proposal shall be deemed to have been received
on the day it is delivered in accordance with Rule 2.1

Date of receipt
5.38 Rule 2.2 provides that a notice, communication, or proposal shall be deemed to have been
received on the day it is 'delivered' pursuant to one of the five options for effecting service under
Rule 2.1.

3. Rule 2.3
For the purpose 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 deemed to have been received. Unless the Registrar or the Tribunal
determines otherwise, any period of time under these Rules is to be calculated
in accordance with the Singapore Standard Time (GMT +8).

4. Rule 2.4
Any non-business days at the place of receipt shall be included in calculating
any period of time under these Rules. If the last day of any period of time under
these Rules is not a business day at the place of receipt in accordance with
Rule 2.1, the period is extended until the first business day which follows.

Calculation of periods of time

5.39 Time periods under the SIAC Rules will begin to run on the day following the day when a
notice, communication, or proposal is deemed to have been received pursuant to Rules 2.1 and 2.2
of the 2016 SIAC Rules.
5.40 Time begins to run from the day after receipt even if that day is a holiday or a non-business day
in the country where the notification or communication is received. (42) Rule 2.3 was
P 88
modified in 2016 to make clear that any period of time under the SIAC Rules is to be calculated in
accordance with Singapore Standard Time (GMT + 8), unless otherwise determined by the

6
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 Registrar or the tribunal. Thus, a notice of arbitration filed with SIAC at 5pm Greenwich Mean Time
will be considered to have been received by the SIAC Registrar and the respondent at 1am the
following day unless otherwise determined by the Registrar or the tribunal. This could, in turn, have a
bearing on a party's compliance with contractual and statutory time-limitation periods.
5.41 If the final day of a stipulated period of time is a 'non-business day' at the place of receipt, the
period is extended to the first business day which follows.
5.42 While non-business days falling within a period of time are included in the calculation of time,
the SIAC Registrar and tribunals have been known to grant additional time (pursuant to Rules 27(b)
and 41.2) should major consecutive holidays occur close to the point when a stipulated period of
time is due to expire.

5. Rule 2.5
The parties shall file with the Registrar a copy of any notice, communication or
proposal concerning the arbitral proceedings.

Copies to be filed with the Registrar

5.43 The parties to a SIAC arbitration are required to file with the Registrar a copy of any notice,
communication, or proposal concerning the arbitral proceedings (43) so as to allow the SIAC
Secretariat to perform its supervisory function, including its scrutiny of arbitral awards pursuant to
Rule 32.3 of the SIAC Rules. Parties should also copy such communications to the tribunal
members once the tribunal is constituted.

6. Rule 2.6
Except as provided in these Rules, the Registrar may at any time extend or
abbreviate any time limits prescribed under these Rules.

The Registrar's power to amend time limits

5.44 The Registrar may modify any procedural time limits arising during a SIAC arbitration unless
otherwise provided in the SIAC Rules. As a general rule, however, only the tribunal can modify time
limits which are within its authority to set (eg the date by which submissions are to be filed).

C. Rule 3—Notice of Arbitration

5.45 A party (or parties) begins an arbitration under the SIAC Rules by filing a Notice of Arbitration
with the Registrar and the respondent (or respondents). As discussed in this part of Chapter 5, the
Notice of Arbitration must, among other things, include brief particulars of the dispute but in
sufficient detail so as to inform the respondent about the nature of the case being brought against it.
The information in the Notice of Arbitration will also assist the
P 89
SIAC Registrar and Secretariat to set the amount of the advance on costs pursuant to Rule 34.2
and, to the extent necessary, identify potential candidates for the role of sole arbitrator or presiding
arbitrator.

1. Rule 3.1
A party wishing to commence an arbitration under these Rules (the 'Claimant')
shall file with the Registrar a Notice of Arbitration which shall include:
a.a demand that the dispute be referred to arbitration;
b.the names, addresses, telephone numbers, facsimile numbers, and electronic
mail addresses, if known, of the parties to the arbitration and their
representatives, if any;
c.a reference to the arbitration agreement invoked and a copy of the arbitration
agreement;
d.a reference to the contract or other instrument (eg, investment treaty) (44) out of
or in relation to which the dispute arises and, where possible, a copy of the
contract or other instrument;
e.a brief statement describing the nature and circumstances of the dispute,
specifying the relief claimed and, where possible, an initial quantification of the

7
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 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 arbitrators if not specified in the arbitration
agreement;
h.unless otherwise agreed by the parties, 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 under these Rules.

5.46 A Notice of Arbitration is required to cover the matters detailed in Rule 3.1 in order for the
arbitration to be deemed to have commenced pursuant to Rule 3.3. A Notice of Arbitration must be
accompanied by a copy of the arbitration agreement (which could be an arbitration clause within a
contract) and, where possible, the relevant contract or other instrument out of or in relation to which
the dispute arises. In practice, a Notice of Arbitration is also usually accompanied by the key factual
documents that evidence the claimant's summary of its version of events that have given rise to the
dispute as well as, potentially, key legal authorities. As discussed further in the context of Rule
3.1(e), the Notice of Arbitration is a form of advocacy. Its content thus should be guided by both the
terms of the SIAC Rules and the need to begin the process of convincing the tribunal (and the other
side if there is a prospect of settlement negotiations) of the merits of the claimant's position.
a. Rule 3.1(a): demand that the dispute be referred to arbitration
5.47 No particular form of words is needed in order to satisfy Rule 3.1(a). There is no need for a
claimant to expressly state that it 'demands' an arbitration. Indeed, the mere filing and service of a
Notice of Arbitration will constitute a sufficient demand that the dispute be referred to arbitration.
P 90
b. Rule 3.1(b): contact details of the parties and their representatives
5.48 The claimant is required to include in the Notice of Arbitration the names and pertinent contact
details of the parties to the arbitration and their legal representatives, if known. It is important that
care be taken to ensure that the parties are identified correctly so as to avoid any dispute over
whether the proceedings have been properly commenced. (45) There is no requirement for party
representatives to provide powers of attorney with a Notice of Arbitration, although in practice they
occasionally do so.
c. Rule 3.1(c): the arbitration agreement
5.49 A claimant should ordinarily (46) set out in full in the Notice of Arbitration the terms of the
arbitration agreement which it contends provides the tribunal with jurisdiction, and to provide a copy
thereof. A claimant pursuing claims in reliance upon multiple arbitration agreements should provide
all relevant agreements as well as an indication of the particular arbitration agreement under which
each claim is made. (47)
5.50 The requirement in Rule 3.1(c) for the claimant to provide a copy of the arbitration agreement
might suggest that a SIAC arbitration can be brought only pursuant to a written arbitration
agreement. It is enough, however, under Singapore law if an arbitration agreement is merely
evidenced in writing. Section 2A(4) of the IAA and section 4(4) of the AA provide that: 'An
arbitration agreement is in writing if its content is recorded in any form, whether or not the arbitration
agreement or contract has been concluded orally, by conduct or by other means.'
5.51 The IAA and AA further provide that an arbitration agreement is in writing if the information is
contained in an electronic communication which is accessible for subsequent reference. (48) Thus,
an arbitration agreement can be formed by an exchange of emails which record 'an agreement by
the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise
between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not'. (49) This can be
achieved through a basic agreement to SIAC arbitration which would not be incomplete merely
because the parties have not agreed all particulars such as the seat of arbitration and the number of
arbitrators. (50)
5.52 Singapore law also expressly recognizes that an arbitration agreement can be incorporated
into a contract by reference. (51) That is, a reference in a contract to another document which
P 91
contains an arbitration clause is sufficient to constitute an agreement to arbitrate disputes arising

8
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 out of the contract.
5.53 Finally, as a matter of Singapore law, an arbitration agreement can arise if a party asserts that
such an agreement exists in a pleading, statement of case, or any other document in circumstances
which call for a reply and the assertion is not denied by the other party. (52)
d. Rule 3.1(d): the contract or other instrument
5.54 The claimant is required to specify in the Notice of Arbitration the contract or, following
amendments made to the SIAC Rules in 2013, any other instrument to which the dispute relates
(such as an investment treaty), and, where possible, to provide a copy thereof. The reference to an
investment treaty in Rule 3.1(d) was retained in the 2016 SIAC Rules notwithstanding the creation of
a set of rules specifically for investment cases. This is because investors and states may still agree
to have their disputes determined in accordance with the standard SIAC Rules. An agreement by
the parties to refer their disputes 'to SIAC for arbitration' or 'to arbitration in accordance with the
SIAC Rules' will be deemed to be an agreement that the dispute should be conducted under the
standard SIAC Rules. (53) For the SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules to apply, the parties must have
expressly agreed to refer a dispute to arbitration in accordance with the 'SIAC Investment
Arbitration Rules'. (54)
5.55 Rule 3.1(d) and the new SIAC investment rules reflect the increasing importance of investment
treaty arbitration. Many investment treaties, including some entered into by Singapore, expressly
recognize that the investor and the State hosting the investment may choose to resolve disputes
under the rules of a commercial arbitral institution such as SIAC. (55)
e. Rule 3.1(e): brief overview of the claim
5.56 The claimant is required to provide a brief statement describing the nature and circumstances
of the dispute and the relief claimed. The key word in Rule 3.1(e) is 'brief'. The claimant will have an
opportunity later in the proceedings to present its case in full unless it elects pursuant to Rule 3.2 to
have the Notice of Arbitration treated as its Statement of Claim. As a general rule, the Notice of
Arbitration should contain sufficient detail to enable the respondent to understand the claims being
made and to formulate its defences.
5.57 The style used in the drafting of a Notice of Arbitration is often different to that of an originating
process such as a summons or court application used in domestic litigation. The Notice of
Arbitration will be the first pleading that an arbitrator in a new case will read. Thus, the art of
persuasion starts with its drafting. Care should be taken to ensure that it leaves a favourable
impression of the strength of the claimant's claim in the mind of the arbitrator(s).
5.58 The claimant should also provide an initial quantification of the amount claimed, if possible.
The estimate, along with the value of any counterclaims raised by the respondent, is used by the
Registrar to determine on a preliminary basis the fees payable to the tribunal members and the
SIAC Secretariat using the SIAC Schedule of Fees. This will, in turn, allow the
P 93
Registrar to fix the amount of the advance on costs required to be paid by the parties at an early
stage of the arbitration. (56)
f. Rule 3.1(f): statement on agreed or proposed procedures
5.59 A claimant should specify in the Notice of Arbitration any matters upon which the parties have
previously agreed regarding the conduct of the arbitration. Some of the procedural issues upon
which the parties may have agreed are identified in Rule 3.1(g)–(j). In addition to those expressly
prescribed matters, a claimant should also address in the Notice of Arbitration any agreement on
the seat of the arbitration, (57) any necessary qualifications that the SIAC President should consider
when appointing an arbitrator, the applicability of legal instruments like the International Bar
Association's (IBA) Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration 2010 (IBA Rules
(2010)), and any constraints on the tribunal such as any agreed period of time within which it must
render an award.
5.60 In the absence of (or in addition to) any agreement of the parties, the claimant may make
submissions in its Notice of Arbitration on how it considers the arbitration should be conducted.
g. Rule 3.1(g): proposal on the number of arbitrators
5.61 The claimant should note any agreement of the parties on the number of arbitrators or, in the
absence of an agreement, make a proposal on whether the arbitration should be conducted before
one or three arbitrators. A sole arbitrator is usually sufficient for relatively low-value disputes. A
three-person tribunal, which will increase costs (see Chapter 15) and potentially the time within
which the dispute will be resolved, can be more appropriate for high value or complex arbitrations or
those which will determine significant issues of principle. The default rule is that in the absence of an
agreement on the number of arbitrators, or there being special circumstances, a sole arbitrator will

9
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 be appointed (Rule 9.1).
h. Rule 3.1(h): arbitrator nomination
5.62 Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the claimant should 'nominate' an arbitrator for a
three-member tribunal or 'propose' an arbitrator for sole-arbitrator cases. (58) The terminology is
important. Where the parties have agreed to a three-person tribunal, the claimant has the right to
'nominate' a person to serve on the tribunal. That nomination will be considered by, and is subject to
the approval of, the SIAC President who alone has the power to 'appoint' formally an arbitrator to a
tribunal pursuant to Rule 9.3. If the parties have agreed that a sole arbitrator should resolve their
disputes, the claimant can only 'propose' a candidate for the role as the person is subject to the
approval of the other party. If the respondent agrees to the candidate, or conversely the claimant
agrees to a person proposed by the respondent, the sole arbitrator may be formally 'appointed' by
the SIAC President (see Rule 10).
5.63 The claimant should provide the name, address, telephone number, and email address of any
arbitrator who is nominated or proposed. (59)
5.64 In cases where a sole arbitrator is to be appointed, the claimant may not wish to propose
someone for the role in its Notice of Arbitration for fear that the respondent will instinctively reject
anyone proposed by the claimant. In such circumstances, the Registrar may still accept the Notice
of Arbitration if the claimant identifies the proposed method for sole arbitrator selection. For
instance, the parties could adopt a list procedure whereby each party provides a list of, say, five
candidates which the opposing party is then asked to rank in order of preference. The two lists are
then compared to see if an agreement can be reached by the parties on the sole arbitrator. A
variance of this approach is for the parties to agree on a suitable profile for the sole arbitrator (or
presiding arbitrator) in terms of such things as nationality, legal and/or technical expertise, language
abilities, physical location, profession, or other individual characteristics. The agreed criteria could
then be submitted to SIAC with a request that it provides a list of five or so candidates conforming
to the criteria. The parties might then have an agreed period of time in which to settle upon a
candidate, failing which the choice could be made by the SIAC President. (60)
5.65 One of the distinguishing features of arbitration as compared to court litigation is that not only
does a party get to choose or agree on an arbitrator, but candidates can be interviewed in advance
of the choice being made. During any such meetings, parties should be mindful of the guidelines
regarding impartiality, independence, and disclosure set forth in guidelines such as the Chartered
Institute of Arbitrators Guidelines for Interviews of Prospective Arbitrators (2015). Suitable topics for
discussion include whether the candidate has any potential conflicts of interest and the necessary
qualifications.
i. Rule 3.1(i): rules of law
5.66 The claimant should identify in its Notice of Arbitration any applicable rules of law. These
include the rules of law applicable to the substance of the dispute, the arbitration agreement (if
different), and the arbitration procedure. An identification of the applicable rules of law will, among
other things, help the SIAC President to determine the appropriate profile of candidates for the role
of arbitrator should the President be required to choose someone on the parties' behalf pursuant to
Rules 10.2 or 11.3.
j. Rule 3.1(j): language
5.67 The claimant should specify in its Notice of Arbitration the language of the arbitration agreed
by the parties or, failing that, make a proposal thereon. (61)
k. Rule 3.1(k): the filing fee
5.68 The claimant must pay the case filing fee when filing the Notice of Arbitration with the
Registrar. This can be done by cheque (in Singapore dollars) or electronic transfer (received in
Singapore dollars free of bank charges). SIAC can also in exceptional cases receive payment of a
filing fee through the use of a credit card although that may require additional administrative steps.
Details of the prescribed fee are contained in the SIAC Schedule of Fees and are discussed in part
B of Chapter 15. (62) Failure to pay the filing fee will render the Notice of Arbitration incomplete.
P 94

2. Rule 3.2
The Notice of Arbitration may also include the Statement of Claim referred to in
Rule 20.2.

The Notice of Arbitration can be treated as a Statement of Claim

10
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 5.69 A claimant may wish to try to accelerate the arbitration by declaring that the Notice of
Arbitration should be treated as its Statement of Claim (which, if so, would need to satisfy the
requirements for a Statement of Claim prescribed in Rule 20.2) or by attaching a Statement of
Claim to its Notice of Arbitration as a separate document.
5.70 This strategy has certain risks, including those arising from the development of the Statement
of Claim before the makeup (and cultural and stylistic preferences) of the tribunal is known and
before the respondent has identified its defences and any counterclaims it may wish to pursue. It is
thus generally discouraged despite having the attraction of saving time and cost.

3. Rule 3.3
The date of receipt of the complete Notice of Arbitration by the Registrar shall be
deemed to be 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 and Rule 6.1(b) (if applicable) 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 the
arbitration.

Commencement of the arbitration

5.71 The date on which SIAC receives a complete Notice of Arbitration, as determined by the
Registrar, will be deemed the date the arbitration is commenced. It is also the date from which the
period of time for the respondent to submit a Response to the Notice of Arbitration begins to run
(see Rule 4.1).
5.72 The Registrar may determine that a Notice of Arbitration is complete if there has been
'substantial compliance' with the requirements of Rule 3.1 and Rule 6.1(b), if applicable. In practical
terms, this means the Notice of Arbitration should at a minimum cover the requirements of Rules
3.1(b)–(e) and (k).
5.73 In the absence of a complete Notice of Arbitration, the SIAC Secretariat will contact the
claimant to request the missing information.
5.74 Should the matter be allowed to proceed, SIAC will typically provide the following information
to the parties: the commencement date; the SIAC case number; the method by which the parties
are to communicate with each other and the tribunal (with SIAC generally having a preference for
electronic communications); the financial details for the case, including the estimated SIAC costs of
the arbitration, (63) the requested advance on costs and the due date for the advance; the details of
the SIAC team (counsel, associate counsel, and SIAC case manager) assigned to the case;
payment instructions; and the current SIAC Practice Note for Administered Cases. SIAC will also
inform the respondent what information that should be contained in its Response to the Notice of
Arbitration, when it should be filed, and the filing fee payable should the respondent wish to file a
counterclaim.
P 95

4. Rule 3.4
The Claimant shall, at the same time as it files the Notice of Arbitration with the
Registrar, send a copy of the Notice of Arbitration to the Respondent, and shall
notify the Registrar that it has done so, specifying the mode of service employed
and the date of service.

Copy of the Notice of Arbitration to be sent to the respondent

5.75 Rule 3.4 relieves SIAC of the administrative burden of serving the Notice of Arbitration on the
respondent. The claimant is required to serve the respondent with the Notice of Arbitration 'at the
same time' (or shortly thereafter) (64) it files the Notice with the Registrar.

D. Rule 4—Response to the Notice of

Arbitration
5.76 Rule 4 prescribes the manner in which the respondent should respond to the Notice of
Arbitration.

11
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 1. Rule 4.1
The Respondent shall file a Response with the Registrar within 14 days of
receipt of the Notice of Arbitration. The Response shall include:
a.a confirmation or denial of all or part of the claims, including, where possible,
any plea that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction;
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 or any comment with respect to the matters covered
in such Rule;
d.unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the nomination of an arbitrator if the
arbitration agreement provides for three arbitrators or, if the arbitration
agreement provides for a sole arbitrator, comments on the Claimant's proposal
for a sole arbitrator or a counter-proposal; and
e.payment of the requisite filing fee under these Rules for any counterclaim.

a. Response to the Notice of Arbitration required within 14 days

5.77 Rule 4.1 requires the respondent to respond to the claims and stipulate any counterclaims
within 14 days of receiving a valid (65) Notice of Arbitration. This is done through the preparation and
filing of a document with SIAC referred to as the Response to the Notice of Arbitration (referred to
herein and in the SIAC Rules as the Response). The Registrar may extend the 14-day deadline for
the filing of the Response pursuant to Rule 2.6. If there are multiple respondents, each may submit
its own Response or a single Response may be submitted on their behalf jointly.
P 96
5.78 Any failure by a respondent to submit a Response will not prevent the arbitration from
proceeding. (66) A related question often asked by users of arbitration, particularly claimants, is
whether a summary or default judgment can be obtained when a respondent fails to file a
Response. While tribunals have traditionally had difficulty answering that question in the affirmative
due to the need to ensure that the tribunal's decision is enforceable, a mechanism for the early
dismissal of claims and defences has been incorporated into the 2016 SIAC Rules for the first time.
(67) Specifically, Rule 29 allows a tribunal to dismiss a claim or defence which is manifestly without
legal merit or outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal. It is unclear whether an application could be
made under Rule 29 to have an award rendered in favour of a claimant on the basis that the
respondent had failed to file a Response, as opposed to its having filed an obviously deficient
defence, which is to what Rule 29 is expressly directed.
5.79 A further question often raised, this time usually by respondents, is whether a respondent can
participate in an arbitration which it had previously ignored. The unequivocal answer to that question
is yes, with the terms of the respondent's participation to be set by the tribunal. While this is not
stated expressly in the SIAC Rules, other arbitral institutions recognize that the failure to file a
Response will not constitute a waiver of the respondent's right to defend itself subsequently or
pursue a counterclaim. (68)
b. Rule 4.1(a): response to the claims
5.80 The respondent is required in its Response to confirm or deny all or part of the claims raised in
the Notice of Arbitration. The respondent is not obliged to elaborate on its defences, but may do so.
5.81 In terms of drafting style, the respondent can, but need not, go through each and every
allegation raised in the Notice of Arbitration and painstakingly confirm whether the allegation is
accepted, denied or left open (as is often done in domestic court litigation). Rather, respondents
often adopt the approach of addressing the allegations raised by a claimant in broad terms while
telling its version of the dispute. Ultimately, the Response is a form of advocacy, which the
respondent should use to begin the process of convincing the tribunal of its defences and any
counterclaims it may have.
5.82 Singapore law requires that the raising of any jurisdictional objections be done 'not later than'
the filing of the Statement of Defence. (69) As a matter of practice, however, it is usually best for a
respondent to do so at the first opportunity, which the SIAC Rules now expressly recognize.
Specifically, Rule 4.1(a) of the 2016 SIAC Rules provides that 'where possible, any plea that the
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction' should be included in the respondent's Response.
P 97

12
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 c. Rule 4.1(b): counterclaims
5.83 The respondent should articulate any counterclaims it has against the claimant in its
Response. The detail (and style) required by Rule 4.1(b) is equivalent to that expected of the
claimant pursuant to Rule 3.1(e) (see paras [5.56–5.58]). It need only be brief as the respondent will
have a further opportunity to describe its counterclaims in full when filing its Statement of
Counterclaim pursuant to Rule 20.
5.84 As discussed in Chapter 10, a respondent may also raise set-off defences in its Response to
the Notice of Arbitration.
d. Rule 4.1(c): response to claimant's proposals on procedure
5.85 The respondent should respond to or accept any submissions the claimant has made in its
Notice of Arbitration regarding the conduct of the arbitration. In particular, it is good practice for a
respondent to comment in the Response on the procedural matters referred to in Rule 3.1 so that
the SIAC President or the tribunal will have the benefit of the respondent's input on such matters
before arriving at any decision thereon.
5.86 The respondent is also at liberty to comment on any relevant procedural matters which were
not addressed by the claimant in the Notice of Arbitration.
e. Rule 4.1(d): nominating an arbitrator
5.87 If the parties have agreed (in their arbitration agreement) to have three arbitrators determine
their dispute and the claimant has nominated an arbitrator in its Notice of Arbitration pursuant to
Rule 3.1(h), the respondent should 'nominate' (70) an arbitrator in its Response (see para [5.62]
above). If the respondent does not do so, it risks waiving its right to nominate an arbitrator.
Alternatively, if the parties have agreed to have a sole arbitrator determine their dispute and the
claimant has proposed a candidate, the respondent should accept the candidate or make its own
proposal.
5.88 The respondent should include in the Response the name, address, telephone number, and
email address of any arbitrator nominated or proposed.
5.89 As discussed at para [5.65] above, the respondent can interview one or more candidates for
the role of party nominated arbitrator (for a three-person tribunal) before making its choice in order
to confirm, for instance, that the candidate does not have any conflicts of interest and satisfies any
qualifications that the parties have previously agreed an arbitrator should possess.
5.90 As discussed at para [5.64], if a sole-arbitrator (or presiding arbitrator) is to be chosen by the
parties, they may wish to consider using a list procedure and/or calling upon SIAC to help them
make their choice.
f. Rule 4.1(e): the filing fee for any counterclaims
5.91 Rule 4.1(e) of the 2016 SIAC Rules requires the respondent to pay the Registrar a filing fee
should it raise any counterclaims. This can be done by cheque or electronic transfer. Details of the
prescribed fee are contained in the SIAC Schedule of Fees and are discussed in part B of Chapter
15.
P 98
5.92 SIAC will consider the counterclaim to be incomplete should the respondent fail to pay the
requisite filing fee.

2. Rule 4.2
The Response may also include the Statement of Defence and a Statement of
Counterclaim, as referred to in Rules 20.3 and 20.4.

a. Statement of Defence and Statement of Counterclaim

5.93 The respondent may include a Statement of Defence and a Statement of Counterclaim with its
Response to the Notice of Arbitration.
5.94 While this can save time and cost in the proceedings, it entails certain risks (see para [5.69–
5.70] above). It is thus generally discouraged, although one instance in which it might be
appropriate is if the claimant has itself included the Statement of Claim with its Notice of Arbitration.

3. Rule 4.3
The Respondent shall, at the same time as it files the Response with the

13
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 Registrar, send a copy of the Response to the Claimant, and shall notify the
Registrar that it has done so, specifying the mode of service employed and the
date of service.

a. Serving a copy of the Response on the claimant

5.95 The respondent should send a copy of its Response to the claimant 'at the same time' (71) as it
filed the Response with the Registrar. After doing so, the respondent must notify the Registrar and
specify the mode and date of service.
P 98
References
1)
In Black & Veatch Singapore Pte Ltd v Jurong Engineering Ltd [2004] 4 SLR(R) 19 (Singapore
Court of Appeal) para 3, the parties had agreed to arbitrate in 'accordance with the rules of
arbitration promulgated by the [SIAC]'. The Court of Appeal held that in the absence of express
language to the contrary, a (domestic) arbitration will be governed by the arbitration rules in force at
the time the arbitration is commenced, not at the time the arbitration agreement was reached.
2)
Car & Cars Pte Ltd v Volkswagen AG and another [2010] 1 SLR 625.
3)
This decision was affirmed in Chiam Heng Hsien v Chiam Heng Chow [2014] SGHC 119. At para
72, the High Court reiterated that if parties intended to refer to rules existing at the date of contract,
they ought to do so expressly. A general reference to arbitration rules in an arbitration agreement
would suggest that parties do not intend to refer to the rules in existence at the time of their entering
into the contract. The same approach was followed by the English High Court in Honeywell
International Middle East Limited v Meydan Group LLC [2014] EWHC 1344, where at para 111,
the Court found that in the absence of clear words stipulating otherwise, a reference to a particular
set of rules is a reference to the arbitration rules of the relevant institution at the time the arbitration
commences.
4)
Car & Cars v Volkswagen (n 2) para 31. See Ch 3, paras [3.21–3.22].
5)
AQZ v ARA [2015] 1 SGHC 49.
6)
AQZ v ARA (n 5) paras 125 and 127 (emphasis added).
7)
AQZ v ARA (n 5) para 127.
8)
HKL Group Ltd v Rizq International Holdings Pte Ltd [2013] SGHCR 5, para 12.
9)
Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology Ltd [2009] 3 SLR(R) 936, para 31.
10)
It is not known whether either party subsequently referred the case to SIAC.
11)
Derains and Schwartz, A Guide to the New ICC Rules of Arbitration (2nd edn, Kluwer Law
International 2005) 86.
12)
Preliminary Award in Zurich Chamber of Commerce of 25 November 1994, XXII YB Comm Arb
211, 216 (1997). But cf Award in Zurich Chamber of Commerce Case No 287/95 (25 March 1996),
14 ASA Bull 290 (1996) (refusing to proceed under clause referring to 'Arbitration Commission in
Switzerland').
13)
Preliminary Award in Zurich Chamber of Commerce of 25 November 1994, XXII YB Comm Arb 211
(1997).
14)
OLG Oldenburg [2006] Schieds VZ 223.
15)
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Geneva; Interlocutory award in case no 117, 29 November
1996, 15(3) ASA Bulletin 534 (1997).
16)
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Geneva, Interlocutory award, 30 June 1987, 15(1) ASA
Bulletin 122 (1997).

17)

14
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 17)
Grain and Feed Trade Association, which incorporates the GAFTA arbitration rules in its standard
forms of contract.
18)
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 at
[913].
19)
Taizhou Court, PR China, Case Docket Number: [2015] Tai Zhong Shang Zhong Shen Zi, No
00004, Decision of 2 June 2016.
20)
This principle is reflected in the introductory words of Rules 27 (see Ch 12) and stated expressly in
other institutional rules of arbitration. See for example: KCAB Rules (2016), Art 3(2); DIAC Rules
(2013), Art 2.2; KLRCA (2013), Art 1(3).
21)
IAA, s 3(1); 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law, Art 13(3); AA, s 15(4).
22)
Indeed, Art 13(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, which has the force of law in Singapore, provides
that 'parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenging an arbitrator, subject to [the right of a
party to request a court to review the challenged decision'. See P Binder, International Commercial
Arbitration and Conciliation in UNCITRAL Model Law Jurisdictions (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell
2010) para 3-077: 'This provision is mandatory and applies even if the parties agree otherwise. It
constitutes a party's last resort if all else fails, and therefore has to be secured accordingly.'
23)
For a discussion on the mandatory laws to be considered by tribunals, see N Blackaby, C
Partasides et al (eds), Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (6th edn, OUP 2015) paras
3.128–3.130.
24)
The 2016 SIAC Rules includes three new definitions as compared to the 2013 SIAC Rules, namely
the definition for the terms 'Emergency Arbitrator', 'Practice Notes', and 'Rules'.
25)
SIAC Rules (2010), Rule 1.3; SIAC Rules (2007), Rule 1.2.
26)
This brings the SIAC Rules in line with the ICC Rules which defines 'Award' to include 'inter alia, an
interim, partial or final Award': ICC Rules (2017) Art 2(v).
27)
IAA, s 2(1); AA, s 2(1).
28)
IAA, s 2(1); AA, s 2(1).
29)
See Ch 13, paras [13.23–13.24] and Ch 14, paras [14.02–14.07]. Nonetheless, SIAC appears to
be of the view that a decision of an emergency arbitrator can be characterized as an award, at least
in some jurisdictions.
30)
In contrast, the LCIA Arbitration Rules (2014) and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2010) require a
'record of its transmission', which might be different than evidence of 'delivery', as required under
the SIAC Rules: (LCIA Rules (2014), Art 4.1; UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 (as revised in
2010) (UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2010)), Art 2.1.
31)
English authorities have interpreted effective service under Section 76 of the English Arbitration Act
1996 (Service of notices etc) to include service onto an agent with actual or ostensible authority. In
Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore and another [2016] EWHC
1118 (Comm), the claimant applied to set aside the tribunal's award under Section 72 of the
English Arbitration Act 1996 on the ground that the tribunal had not been properly constituted. The
English High Court held (paras 49 and 55) that the defendants had served the notice of arbitration
on an individual who did not have authority, whether actual or ostensible, to receive the notice. Thus,
service was not effective and, consequently, the tribunal was not properly constituted and the award
set aside.
32)
Legal Protection (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, Rule 7(3).
33)
If emails can no longer be delivered to a previously used email address, the sender should consider
using one of the alternative means of service under Rule 2.
34)
New York Convention, Art 5(1)(b). See also 1985 Model Law, Art 34(2)(a)(ii) and Art 36(1)(a)(ii),
which is incorporated into the IAA, pursuant to s 3(1) thereof.
35)

15
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 35)
If, conversely, the application of the SIAC Rules is accepted by the receiving party, then it may be
taken to have agreed to the service of documents in accordance with the SIAC Rules. See the
discussion of AQZ v AZR (n 5), where the Singapore High Court accepts this point, in Ch 6.
36)
The need to consider local law requirements was highlighted in the Swedish case, Lenmorniiproekt
OAO v Arne Larsson & Partner Leasing Aktiebolg (Ö 13-09, 16 April 2010) (Swedish Supreme
Court). The respondent company had changed its address prior to the arbitration without informing
the claimant despite being explicitly required to do so under the contract. The request for arbitration
was then sent to the respondent's last known address as stated in the parties' contract. The request
for arbitration was received and signed for by an unknown person but a later notice regarding the
hearing was returned with the notation 'no addressee at the stated address'. The service was
deemed to be satisfactory by the arbitral tribunal as the address used for the respondent was the
most recent known address. The Supreme Court of Sweden, however, held on appeal that the
respondent had not been made properly aware of the arbitral proceedings as no authorized
representative of the company had received the notice of arbitration. The ruling was based on the
Swedish Arbitration Act (SFS 1999:116), s 54(2) which, like the New York Convention, Art 5(1)(b),
and 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law, Art 34(2)(a)(ii) and Art 36(1)(a)(ii), provides that an award cannot
be invoked against a party if that party proves it had not been: (i) duly notified of the appointment of
an arbitrator; (ii) duly notified of the arbitration proceedings; or (iii) for some other reason was not
capable of presenting its case. H Dahlberg and M Öhrström, 'Proper Notification: A Crucial Element
of Arbitral Proceedings' (2010) 27(5) J Intl Arb 539.
37)
Singapore Rules of Court, O 62 r 3; Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) s 387.
38)
S Chen and E Chua, Civil Procedure in Singapore (2nd edn, Wolters Kluwer 2016) para 253. The
authors discuss a string of cases detailing what would not be regarded as good personal service.
These include: Thomson v Pheney [1832] 1 DPC 441, 443 (server is permitted to throw the
document down in defendant's presence instead of handing it to him); Frith v Lord Donegal [1834]
2 Dow PR 527 (it is not sufficient to serve on the wife of the defendant); Heath v White ]1844] 2 D &
L 40 (server is not permitted to throw the document down in the wife's presence (in lieu of the
defendant's presence)); Christmas v Eicke [1848] 6 D & L 156 (it is not sufficient to put the
document through the door crevice and inform the defendant of the nature of the document);
Banque Russe v Clarke, [1894] WN 203 (it is not sufficient to enclose the document in an envelope
without explaining the contents of the envelope).
See also J Pinsler, Principles of Civil Procedure 129 (Acad Publ 2013); Singapore Civil
Procedure 2015 Volume 1, at [1102] (GP Selvam ed, Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2014).
39)
The equivalent rule in the 2010 and 2013 SIAC Rules requires the sender of a communication to
make 'reasonable inquiry' into whether the other options for service prescribed by the rules can be
used, whereas the 2016 SIAC Rules require 'reasonable efforts' (leaving open the question whether
this is a more onerous standard).
40)
TH Webster, Handbook of UNCITRAL Arbitration (Sweet & Maxwell 2010) paras 2.26–2.30.
41)
LCIA Rules (2014), Art 4.1: service can be effected 'in any other manner ordered by the Arbitral
Tribunal'.
42)
In contrast, the ICC Rules (2017), Art 3(4) provides that time periods under the ICC Rules will begin
to run on the day following the date a notification or communication is deemed to have been made.
But 'when the day next following such date is an official holiday, or a non-business day in the country
where the notification or communication is deemed to have been made, the period of time shall
commence on the first following business day'.
43)
This does not apply to so-called party to party communications not intended to be viewed by anyone
other than the parties.
44)
The text in brackets has not been added by the authors, but is reproduced as it appears in the SIAC
Rules (2016), Rule 3.1(d).

45)

16
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 45)
In Honeywell International (n 3) paras 115–126, the claimant wrongly named Meydan LLC as the
respondent in its notice of arbitration. The contract in relation to which the arbitration was brought,
however, was with an entity called Meydan Group LLC. The English High Court noted various
English authorities which have accepted that a mistake in a request for arbitration will not render an
award unenforceable if the document in its totality could be construed as identifying the correct
respondent. On that occasion, the English High Court was satisfied that the proper party had been
named as the respondent notwithstanding the mistake in the identification of the respondent as
Meydan LLC. Meydan LLC had become Meydan Group LLC after a change of name and thus in
essence it was the same entity. This meant that the request for arbitration would reasonably have
and did come to the attention of Meydan Group LLC.
46)
An exception might be when the arbitration is brought pursuant to a detailed ad hoc arbitration
agreement, which, due to its length, is only attached as an annex or exhibit to the Notice of
Arbitration.
47)
See the discussion on the pursuit of one or more arbitrations under multiple contracts in Ch 7.
48)
IAA, s 2A(5); AA, s 4(5).
49)
IAA, s 2A(1); AA, s 4.
50)
See Section A of this Ch 5 for a discussion on so-called pathological clauses.
51)
IAA, s 2A(7); AA, s 4(7). For a discussion on the jurisdiction of a SIAC tribunal, see Ch 10.
52)
IAA, s 2A(6); AA, s 4(6).
53)
SIAC Rules (2016), Rule 1.1.
54)
SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules (2017), Rule 1.1.
55)
eg ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, Art 33(1)(f); ASEAN-China Investment
Agreement, Art 14(4)(e). For a discussion of investor-State arbitration in Singapore, see Ch 1,
paras [1.40–1.46] and Ch 19.
56)
For a discussion on the determination of the advance on costs payable by the parties, including in
circumstances where the claims or counterclaims are not quantified, see Ch 15.
57)
See SIAC Rules (2016), Rule 21.
58)
In practice, SIAC has allowed arbitrations to commence even when a claimant has not nominated
an arbitrator in its Notice of Arbitration provided it does so within a reasonable time thereafter,
which Rule 11.2 would suggest is 14 days.
59)
This requirement is stated expressly in some arbitration rules, such as the LCIA Rules (2014), Art
1.1(v).
60)
C Seppälä, 'Recommended Strategy for Getting the Right International Arbitral Tribunal: A
Practitioner's View', (2009) 6 TDM.
61)
See also SIAC Rules (2016), Rule 22.
62)
The SIAC Schedule of Fees can be found in Appendix 1.
63)
For a discussion on the 'SIAC costs of the arbitration', see Ch 15.
64)
While the Notice of Arbitration can be filed and served on the Registrar and respondent
simultaneously if transmitted electronically, sending the documents by any other means is likely to
have to be done sequentially.
65)
As noted in paras [5.71–5.74], the Registrar may reject a Notice of Arbitration under Rule 3.3 on the
basis that it is incomplete. In such cases, the 14-day period for the Response will begin to run from
the date of the formal commencement of the proceedings.

66)

17
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.
 66)
Rule 20.9 allows the tribunal to proceed with the arbitration even if the respondent does not a submit
a Statement of Defence. While it is not stated expressly in the SIAC Rules, the same principle
applies if the respondent does not file a Response.
67)
SIAC Rules (2016), Rule 29; see Ch 11.
68)
LCIA Rules (2014), Art 2.4 states this principle expressly: 'Failure to deliver any or any part of a
Response within time or at all shall not (by itself) preclude the Respondent from denying any claim
or from advancing any defence or cross-claim in the arbitration.'
69)
Art 16(2) of the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law, incorporated into Singapore law pursuant to section
3(1) of the IAA, provides that: 'A plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction shall be
raised not later than the submission of the statement of defence. A party is not precluded from
raising such a plea by the fact he has appointed, or participated in the appointment of, an arbitrator.'
70)
See para [5.62] for a discussion on the relevance of the terminology 'nominate', 'propose', and
'appoint' in the context of the selection of arbitrators.
71)
As noted at para [5.75], the respondent may not be able to send a copy to the claimant 'at the same
time' precisely as it files the Response with the Registrar unless it does so electronically. Further,
the fact that the respondent must inform the Registrar of the date of service on the claimant
indicates that while the Response should be sent to the claimant and SIAC 'at the same time', it may
arrive on different dates.

© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.

Kluwer Arbitration is made available for personal use only. All content is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws. No part of this
service or the information contained herein may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, or used for advertising or promotional
purposes, general distribution, creating new collective works, or for resale, without prior written permission of the publisher.

If you would like to know more about this service, visit www.kluwerarbitration.com or contact our Sales staff at [email protected] or call +31
(0)172 64 1562.

KluwerArbitration

18
© 2021 Kluwer Law International, a Wolters Kluwer Company. All rights reserved.