Singapore Court upholds principle of minimal curial intervention and refuses curial review of SIAC decision on commencement date of an arbitration (Singapore Court of Appeal)

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

The Singapore Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the principle of minimal curial intervention in arbitration proceedings and dismissed an application to review a decision of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to amend the commencement date of an arbitration.

The respondent filed its notice of arbitration on 24 June 2024 for claims potentially time barred on 1 July 2024. SIAC decided initially that the arbitration was deemed to have commenced on 3 July 2024 when the respondent clarified the arbitration clauses it sought to invoke. When the appellant raised a time bar defence in response, the respondent asked SIAC to amend its decision and SIAC changed the commencement date to 24 June 2024. The appellant applied to the Singapore Courts to overrule SIAC's decision.

The Court of Appeal, upholding the lower court's decision, confirmed that the courts did not have the power to review SIAC's decision because the applicable SIAC Rules 2016 provided in rule 40.2 that the parties waived any right to appeal or review any decision of the SIAC Registrar.

Article 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, applicable in Singapore under the International Arbitration Act, prohibits court intervention in "matters governed by this Law … except where so provided in this Law". The court noted that this involves a two-step inquiry:

• First, is the court asked to determine a "matter" which is governed by the Model Law? The relevant "matter" governed by the Model Law should be construed broadly rather than narrowly.

• Second, is court intervention permitted in the "matter"? This is only possible where the legislation makes express provision for the court's intervention in such a "matter" or the "matter" is not governed by the legislation and the grant of curial relief is warranted.

The court held that procedural determinations affecting the conduct of an arbitration are generally "matters" governed by the Model Law, which does not permit court intervention in respect of those matters.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that SIAC rule 40.2 was an unenforceable ouster clause. In general, an arbitral institution's decision is of an administrative nature and does not affect the parties' substantive rights and positions, but even if it does, the parties would ordinarily retain the right to challenge the award at the post-award stage.

This decision upholds the principle of minimal curial intervention in Singapore-seated arbitrations, which extends to the administrative decisions made by an arbitral institution.

Case: DMZ v DNA [2025] SGCA 52 (14 November 2025) (Sundaresh Menon CJ).