This Is (Not) An Intervention: Singapore Court Refuses To Review SIAC Procedural Decision

The Singapore Court of Appeal has confirmed in DMZ v DNA [2025] SGCA 52 that it cannot review the procedural decisions of arbitral institutions. This decision showcases the Singapore courts' inclination against intervening in the administration of arbitrations especially on matters governed by the parties' agreed procedure, reaffirming the jurisdiction's arbitration-friendliness. More importantly, this decision provides helpful guidance on the limits of the Singapore courts' powers under the International Arbitration Act (IAA) to supervise arbitral proceedings.

Facts

The dispute arose from five contracts between DMZ and DNA, which provided for arbitration under the rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC). DNA filed a Notice of Arbitration seeking repayment under these contracts shortly before their limitation periods expired.

Following enquiries by the SIAC to DNA, the SIAC Registrar informed the parties of the deemed commencement date of the arbitration. DMZ argued in its Response that DNA's claims were time barred as the arbitration was deemed to have commenced after the expiry of the relevant limitation periods.

DNA subsequently requested the SIAC to amend the commencement date of the arbitration. Having considered both parties' submissions, the Registrar amended the commencement date such that it fell before the end of the limitation periods (Amended Decision).

DMZ applied to the Singapore High Court to challenge the Amended Decision and sought, amongst others: (1) a declaration that the commencement date of the arbitration was as stated in the SIAC Registrar's initial decision; (2) a declaration that the Amended Decision was unlawful as it was ultra vires under the SIAC Rules 2016; and (3) an order setting aside the Amended Decision.

The High Court judge dismissed DMZ's application, primarily on the grounds that the IAA does not permit the Singapore courts to grant such relief. Dissatisfied, DMZ appealed against the High Court's decision.

Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision and made the following noteworthy findings.

Limits of supervisory powers

Central to the Court of Appeal's decision was Article 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law (which the IAA incorporates), which provides that "in matters governed by this Law, no court shall intervene except where so provided in this Law".

The Court clarified that Article 5 limited their supervisory powers but only in respect of matters governed by the IAA and UNCITRAL Model Law. Drawing from legislative history and prior case law, the Court noted that the legislation does not regulate all matters relating to arbitrations, such as the consolidation of arbitral proceedings, the contractual relationship between arbitrators and parties or arbitral institutions and the fixing of costs and fees. Where a matter is regulated, Article 5 restricts the Singapore courts to intervening only in the manner permitted by the legislation, reflecting the principle of minimal curial intervention.

It therefore had to determine whether DMZ's application related to a "matter" under the IAA. The Court found that it was, observing that:

• DMZ's application concerned the procedure by which the arbitration is to be conducted, and more specifically, whether the Registrar was entitled to reconsider and amend his prior decision on the commencement date of the arbitration.
• This was a matter addressed by Section 15A of the IAA and Article 19(2) of the Model Law, pursuant to which parties are obliged to arbitrate in accordance with their agreed rules, and absent agreement on any given point of procedure, to arbitrate in accordance with the procedural determinations of the tribunal or arbitral institution.
• Under the SIAC Rules, which applied by the parties' agreement, the Registrar was empowered to decide on the commencement date of the arbitration and issue the Amended Decision. As the IAA did not expressly permit the Court to intervene in this decision, the Court cannot do so.

SIAC Rule 40.2

Further, DMZ's relief was precluded by Rule 40.2 of the SIAC Rules, by which the parties waived "any right of appeal or review in respect of any decisions of...the Registrar to any State court or other judicial authority", except for decisions on challenges to an arbitrator (Rule 16.1) and decisions on the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (Rule 28.1). The Court sought to give effect to the parties' agreement to this procedural rule.

While DMZ sought to argue that Rule 40.2 was unenforceable as an ouster of court jurisdiction, the Court rejected this argument. Rule 40.2 merely limits immediate review but does not bar recourse at the post-award setting aside or enforcement stage if justified.

Commentary

This decision is significant. It resolves a long-standing question under Singapore law about the scope of the Singapore court's powers to supervise arbitrations arising from the Court of Appeal's earlier decision in Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd [2019] 1 SLR 732 (Sun Travels).

In Sun Travels, an award debtor sought to obstruct the enforcement of an arbitral award by commencing court proceedings in the Maldivian courts. The award creditor applied to the Singapore courts seeking anti-suit relief alongside two declarations that: (a) the arbitral awards were final and binding on the parties; and (b) the appellant's conduct in the Maldivian courts was in breach of the parties' arbitration agreement. Although the Court of Appeal did not grant the anti-suit injunctions, it granted the declarations sought although the IAA did not expressly empower the Court to grant such relief.

In DMZ, the Court of Appeal clarified its rationale in Sun Travels, explaining that the case pertained to a situation where there was no ongoing arbitration and accordingly, the court was not being asked to "[intervene] in those [arbitral] proceedings". Hence, the situation in Sun Travels did not engage the prohibition in Article 5 of the IAA, and aligns with the Court's decision in DMZ.

Certain Model Law jurisdictions appear to have taken a different approach to the Article 5 prohibition. For example, the Malaysian High Court in Danieli & C Officine Mecchaniche SPA v Southern HRC Sdn Bhd (WA-24NCC-471-10/2020) refused to grant post-award interim relief on the basis that the court's powers in relation to arbitral awards are restricted to those stated in the Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005 (see our commentary). It will be interesting to see how this approach is compared to that of Singapore.

For now, DMZ reaffirms Singapore law's commercially-minded balance towards curial intervention. While respecting the minimal intervention principle, the Court has confirmed that there will be situations where the Singapore courts can assist the efficient running of arbitrations.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.