SIAC Registrar entitled to exercise discretion to revise decision on commencement date of arbitration (Singapore High Court)

Reproduced from Practical Law with the permission of the publishers. For further information visit www.practicallaw.com.

In DMZ v DNA [2025] SGHC 31, the Singapore High Court held that the SIAC Registrar was entitled to revise their decision on the commencement date of an arbitration. Parties to SIAC arbitrations waive their rights to appeal or challenge such decisions under the SIAC Rules and an application to the court for a declaration setting aside such decisions amounted to an impermissible back-door appeal.

The Singapore High Court (SGHC) has held that it had no jurisdiction to review a decision of the SIAC Registrar revising the commencement date of an arbitration.

A dispute arose between the parties to four sales contracts and an extension agreement (Agreements), each containing a SIAC arbitration clause. On 24 June 2024, one party (claimant) filed a notice of arbitration (NOA) at SIAC.

On 3 July 2024, at the SIAC Registrar's request, the claimant clarified that it was invoking the arbitration agreements under each of the Agreements. Under rule 3.3 of the SIAC Rules 2016, the commencement date of an arbitration is the date that the Registrar receives the complete NOA. Following the claimant's clarification, the Registrar issued a letter stating that the commencement date was 3 July, which gave rise to an alleged time-bar defence from the respondent. The claimant requested that the Registrar revise the commencement date to 24 June, which the Registrar did (Revision), despite the respondent's protests.

The respondent applied to the SGHC to set aside the Revision.

The SGHC dismissed the application, finding:

• Parties to SIAC arbitrations waive their rights to challenge decisions of the Registrar. The parties to a SIAC arbitration waive any right of appeal or review of decisions by the Registrar (rule 40.2, SIAC Rules 2016 (and rule 63.4, SIAC Rules 2025)). There was no support for the proposition that the court could grant declarations in breach of the express provisions of the SIAC Rules. The court can only intervene in accordance with the International Arbitration Act 1994, which does not provide a power to review decisions like the Revision. The application was effectively an impermissible back-door appeal.
• The Registrar has discretion to reconsider administrative decisions. The Revision amounted to a reconsideration of an administrative decision, which was open to the Registrar in their discretion. This was consistent with the Court of Appeal's decision that procedural orders may be reconsidered and revised by a tribunal but cannot be nullified by the court (Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc [2021] 2 SLR 354).

However, the court noted that the Registrar's decisions are not wholly unimpeachable, and they must exercise their powers in a lawful manner, in accordance with the SIAC Rules. Article 34(2)(a)(iv) of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides a basis on which an award may be set aside because the arbitral procedure was contrary to the parties' agreement.

Case: DMZ v DNA [2025] SGHC 31 (25 February 2025) (Hri Kumar Nair J)