Freshfields Asia-Pacific International Arbitration Update: SIAC, HKIAC, and Singapore arbitration case law

SIAC-related updates

(1) SIAC launches new rules

The new SIAC Rules 2025 took effect on 1 January 2025, introducing urgent emergency relief without notice to the other party, reforms to the timeline for tribunals to submit awards for scrutiny, and disclosure of third-party funding. 

We explain the key features of the new rules in this post. 

(2) SIAC Registrar Decisions: No Judicial Review

The SIAC Rules enable the SIAC Registrar to make decisions on areas such as extending or abridging prescribed time periods, determining whether a Notice of Arbitration complies with the form requirements, and ordering a stay of arbitrations pending a decision on consolidation. 

In DMZ v DNA [2025] SGHC 31, the Singapore High Court clarified that the SIAC Registrar’s decision is administrative in nature, and cannot be reviewed by or appealed to the courts. In this case, the parties challenged the SIAC Registrar’s decision to revise the commencement date of the arbitration to an earlier date that brought the claim within its limitation period. The Court held that it had no jurisdiction to review this decision, and clarified that its general statutory power to grant declaratory relief in aid of arbitration could not be used to create a backdoor avenue for appeal. This, the Court held, would be contrary to the SIAC Rules, which provide that the SIAC Registrar’s decisions are conclusive and binding. 

This does not mean that parties are without a remedy. The Court clarified that parties could apply to the SIAC Registrar to revisit the “wrongful” exercise of decision-making power. The Registrar’s wrongful exercise of power could also be a ground to set aside the final arbitral award, on the basis that the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement. In practice, it would likely require extraordinary circumstances for the Singapore courts to set aside an award on this basis.

HKIAC update: HKIAC signals pragmatic approach to compatibility of arbitration clauses

Modern commercial transactions often involve a number of related instruments. In the construction context, there can be main contracts and subcontracts. In the commercial context, there can be guarantees for obligations arising out of a main contract. Often, it will be advantageous for arbitrations arising from related instruments to be resolved together. 

The HKIAC Rules 2024 set out three requirements for consolidation:

• a common question of law or fact arises under each arbitration agreement giving rise to the arbitration;
• the rights to relief claimed are in respect of, or arise out of, the same transaction or a series of related transactions; and
• the arbitration agreements under which those claims are made are compatible.

It is often not straightforward to determine whether arbitration clauses are compatible. HKIAC’s recent Practice Note on Compatibility of Arbitration Clauses under the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules signals its willingness to take a pragmatic case-by-case approach in assessing compatibility of arbitration clauses when considering if arbitrations should be consolidated or whether a single arbitration under multiple contracts may be commenced.

The “pragmatic approach” includes considering: practical feasibility and procedural efficiency for claims under different arbitration agreements to be heard together; whether the principle of party consent would be undermined; and whether the consolidation would open the award to challenge.

The practice note also clarifies the HKIAC’s approach to arbitrator appointment after consolidation. The HKIAC Rules state that the HKIAC may appoint the arbitral tribunal in consolidated and multi-contract arbitrations without regard to the parties’ designation. However, as a matter of practice, according to the HKIAC Practice Note, the HKIAC would respect party autonomy and appoint party-designated arbitrators unless there are justifiable exceptions, such as unequal treatment of the parties in the appointment process. Thus, for example, if parties to consolidated arbitrations are the same and they wish to maintain their prior arbitrator-designations, the HKIAC is likely to facilitate this.

Other notable developments

A non-anonymised ex parte worldwide freezing order in support of a foreign‑seated arbitration

Worldwide freezing orders can be a valuable tool in international disputes against a counterparty who has assets in different jurisdictions but may try to dissipate some or all of those assets before an arbitration can run its course.

In Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(I) 3, the Singapore International Commercial Court provided useful guidance on when it would grant a worldwide freezing order in support of foreign-seated arbitration.

The Court considered that a number of factors together established a sufficient nexus with Singapore for the Singapore courts to grant the freezing order against the defendants: the first defendant was a Singapore-incorporated company; the second defendant was a Singapore citizen; and the defendants had substantial assets in Singapore.

It was also relevant that neither the ICC Rules nor New York law permitted the grant of an ex parte (i.e., without the participation of the respondent) worldwide freezing order, so the arbitral tribunal and New York courts could not grant the order. The Court thus considered its power to grant the order to be useful to plug the gap.

This aspect of the Court’s decision may have practical implications on arbitrations conducted under the SIAC Rules 2025, as those Rules provide for ex parte emergency relief. The Court’s reasoning raises the question of whether the availability of ex parte emergency relief for SIAC arbitrations would mean that the Singapore courts would be slower to grant ex parte injunctive relief for contracts providing for arbitration under the SIAC Rules 2025.  

Arbitration could proceed despite moratorium from corporate restructuring proceedings

When a Singapore court recognises foreign corporate restructuring or reorganisation proceedings (in this case, Malaysian reorganisation proceedings), an automatic moratorium or “stay” arises, thereby preventing any litigation or arbitration proceedings from being brought against the company being reorganised. A “carve-out” order may nevertheless be granted, permitting an arbitration to proceed against the company by excepting—or “carving out”—the arbitration claimant from the moratorium.

In Sapura Fabrication Sdn Bhd v GAS [2025] SGCA 13, the Singapore Court of Appeal clarified the factors for determining whether to grant “carve-out” orders to permit arbitration proceedings to proceed against a foreign company undergoing restructuring proceedings. 

The Court held that it would consider the nature and merits of the claim and prejudice to the creditors or to the orderly administration of the restructuring proceedings, among other factors. The Court would then balance the relevant interests.

In this case, the Court granted the carve-out because the complexity of the claims brought in the arbitration made the claims ill-suited to the proof of debt process in insolvency proceedings. Further, a significant passage of time had passed and the claims had still not been adjudicated.