SIAC 2025 Rules – Streamlined Procedure: What These Changes Mean for You

From 1 January 2025, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules (“SIAC”) 2025 (“2025 Rules”) will govern arbitrations commenced after that date unless the parties agree otherwise. This article is focused on the Streamlined Procedure, set out in Rule 13 and Schedule 2 of the 2025 Rules, and provides our observations on the following:

• when the Streamlined Procedure applies;
• how the Streamlined Procedure works;
• advantages of the Streamlined Procedure;
• when and how parties can object to the Streamlined Procedure;
• possible reforms for the Streamlined Procedure.

1. When Does the Streamlined Procedure Apply to an SIAC Arbitration?

There are two situations in which the Streamlined Procedure would apply to an SIAC arbitration (Rule 13.1 of the 2025 Rules):

• The Streamlined Procedure applies where you and the other party have agreed to its application before the Tribunal is appointed (Rule 13.1(a) of the 2025 Rules).

Or

• The Streamlined Procedure applies where the amount in dispute in the arbitration does not exceed S$1,000,000 prior to the Tribunal being constituted, unless the SIAC President, upon a party’s application, determines that it should not apply (Rule 13.1(b) of the 2025 Rules).
• The SIAC Secretariat will notify you if your arbitration is to be conducted under the Streamlined Procedure (Rule 13.2 of the 2025 Rules).
• The parties may agree to exclude the application of the Streamlined Procedure in writing (Rule 13.3 of the 2025 Rules).

2. How Does the Streamlined Procedure Work?

The core idea behind the Streamlined Procedure is speed. Instead of the traditional, often lengthy two-year arbitration process, the 2025 Rules aim to deliver a final award within 3 months of the Tribunal being appointed. This is achieved by significantly simplifying and shortening the usual steps in an arbitration. These changes can make the process faster and more cost-effective, but they also restrict how evidence can be obtained and presented. We first set out the key features of Schedule 2 of the 2025 Rules (“Schedule 2”) below.

2.1 Appointment of Arbitrator 

• A sole arbitrator shall be appointed (Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2).

And

• The parties may jointly nominate the sole arbitrator within 3 days after the date of the SIAC’s Secretariat’s notification that the Streamlined Procedure applies to the arbitration (Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2).

And

• If the parties are unable to jointly nominate the sole arbitrator within that 3-day period, or if at any time, a party so requests, the SIAC President shall appoint the sole arbitrator as soon as practicable (Paragraph 3 of Schedule 2).

2.2 How the Streamlined Procedure Is Conducted

Unless the Tribunal determines otherwise after considering the views of the parties:

• The arbitration shall be decided on written submissions and any accompanying documentary evidence (Paragraph 11(a) of Schedule 2).

And

• No party shall be entitled to request document production (Paragraph 11(b) of Schedule 2).

And

• No party shall be entitled to file any fact or expert witness evidence (Paragraph 11(c) of Schedule 2).

And

• No hearing will be conducted unless the Tribunal determines that a hearing is necessary under the circumstances, or a party requests a hearing and the Tribunal accepts that request. Any hearing will be conducted by videoconference, teleconference, or other electronic means, unless the parties agree or the Tribunal determines that an in-person or hybrid hearing is appropriate (Paragraph 12 of Schedule 2).

2.3 Time Limit for the Award

The final award shall be made within 3 months from the date of the Tribunal being constituted, unless the Registrar extends the time for making the award (Paragraph 15 of Schedule 2).

2.4 Costs Under the Streamlined Procedure

The Tribunal’s fees and SIAC’s fees are capped at 50% of the maximum limits of the amount in dispute under the SIAC Schedule of Fees 2025, unless the Registrar determines otherwise (Paragraph 16 of Schedule 2).

SIAC Schedule of Fees 2025: https://www.acerislaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/SIAC-Schedule-of-Fees-2025.pdf

3. Advantages of the Streamlined Procedure 

3.1 Efficient Resolution of Lower-Value Claims

Where the amount in dispute is less than S$1,000,000, you do not need to go through the full procedural framework of a normal SIAC arbitration, which typically involves more steps and higher cost. The Streamlined Procedure shortens the process and requires the Tribunal to issue its award within 3 months of constitution, allowing you to obtain a final and enforceable outcome more quickly and with greater cost certainty.

3.2 A Faster Option Where Facts Are Straightforward

The Streamlined Procedure is most suitable for disputes where the issues are mainly legal, or the facts are not contested. In those situations, additional procedures such as document production or witness evidence are unlikely to change the result, and a paper-only decision can be made efficiently.

3.3 SIAC Cost Calculator 

The SIAC online cost calculator makes it easy to estimate the fees payable under the Streamlined Procedure, allowing you to assess the likely costs before commencing arbitration.

You can access the SIAC Cost Calculator at https://siac.org.sg/fee-calculator

4. Circumstances under which a party may be able to persuade the SIAC President that the Streamlined Procedure does not apply

4.1 Procedural Fairness and Protecting Your Right to Be Heard

The first reference point is always what the parties actually agreed to in their contract. Many SIAC clauses drafted before 2025 were not prepared with the Streamlined Procedure in mind. They typically provided for 3 arbitrators in commercial disputes and a full opportunity to present evidence.

However, Singapore courts have held that an arbitration agreement referring to the 2025 Rules will generally adopt the version in force when the arbitration is commenced. In AQZ v ARA [2015] SGHC 49, the Singapore High Court upheld the appointment of a sole arbitrator under the rules then in force, even though the contract itself specified 3 arbitrators. The key point was that the procedural change did not limit either party’s ability to put forward the evidence required to support its position. It simply accelerated the timetable. Accordingly, objections based solely on the wording of the clause are unlikely to succeed.

As noted above, the Tribunal will ordinarily decide the case on written submissions and documents alone. This means no document production, no factual or expert evidence, and no hearing unless permitted. While this may be efficient for simple debt claims or disputes turning solely on law, cases falling within the S$1,000,000 threshold can still involve contested facts or serious allegations. This includes fraud, market misconduct, and wrongful seizure of assets or proprietary claims that require disclosure, witness evidence, and occasionally a hearing to test credibility.

In such situations, the Streamlined Procedure can place the party who holds key documents or technical information in a stronger position. As there is no automatic right to request disclosure of documents or to call witnesses, that party can simply refuse to provide what you need to prove your case. This can delay the process, increase cost, and create a serious risk that the Tribunal will not be able to properly determine the dispute.

The real issue for the Tribunal is whether applying the Streamlined Procedure would prevent material evidence from being placed before the Tribunal. Procedural fairness requires that each party be able to submit the evidence necessary for a proper determination of the dispute. The Singapore Court of Appeal has consistently applied this principle. In China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC [2020] SGCA 12, the Singapore Court of Appeal highlighted the need for “a fair opportunity to prepare and present [a] case before a neutral and unbiased decision-maker”. In Triulzi Cesare SRL v Xinyi Group (Glass) Co Ltd [2015] 1 SLR 114, the Singapore Court of Appeal explained that what fairness requires depends on the circumstances of the particular dispute. Furthermore, in China Machine, the Singapore Court of Appeal emphasised that the key inquiry is whether the Tribunal’s procedural decisions fall within the range of what a reasonable and fair-minded tribunal could have adopted in those circumstances. In other words, efficiency procedural measures remain acceptable only if they still allow the Tribunal to reach a fair and properly informed decision.

Singapore courts continue to enforce this principle strictly. In DJP and others v DJO [2025] SGCA(I) 2, the Singapore Court of Appeal reaffirmed that when arbitration is final and binding, “particular attention must be paid to the integrity of the process by which a decision is reached”. If that integrity is compromised, the award may be set aside.

If your dispute involves contested facts or information that you do not have, you should immediately apply to exclude the Streamlined Procedure. In your application, you should specify the documents or evidence you require and explain why, under the current Streamlined Procedure, the Tribunal would not otherwise be able to consider them. Acting promptly is essential. In Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services [2019] SGCA 33, the Singapore Court of Appeal held that a party who continues to participate without timely objection may, in some circumstances, be treated as having accepted the applicable procedure and may lose the right to challenge it later.

4.2 Fee Caps and Access to Specialist Arbitrators

Under the SIAC Schedule of Fees 2025, a S$1,000,000 dispute (with a sole arbitrator) would attract the following fees:

4.2.1 SIAC Administration Fee (Maximum)

Formula:

S$10,000 + 1.0% of the excess over S$500,000
1.0% × S$500,000 = S$5,000

Total SIAC Administration Fee: S$15,000

4.2.2 Arbitrator’s Fee (Maximum)

Formula:

S$35,000 + 5.0% of the excess over S$500,000
5.0% × S$500,000 = S$25,000
Total Arbitrator’s Fee: S$60,000

4.2.3 SIAC Administration and Arbitrator’s Fees (Maximum)

S$75,000 = S$60,000 + S$15,000 (excluding GST, filing fee and other expenses)

4.2.4 50% of SIAC Administration and Arbitrator’s Fees (Maximum)

The Streamlined Procedure caps the SIAC administration fees and the Tribunal’s fees at 50% of the maximum amounts otherwise payable under the SIAC Schedule of Fees 2025 (Rule 16 of the 2025 Rules).

50% × S$75,000 = S$37,500

Therefore, for a S$1,000,000 dispute conducted under the Streamlined Procedure, the maximum SIAC administration fees and the Tribunal’s fees are capped at approximately S$37,500.

4.2.5 Observation of Fee Caps

This level of remuneration may be appropriate for straightforward claims. However, in specialised areas such as crypto asset trading, crypto-market disputes or complex derivatives, cases often require significant review of trading data, detailed expert analysis and close engagement with technical issues. In such matters, a fixed fee of this scale may not reflect the time or expertise expected of an arbitrator.

By comparison, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) permits arbitrators to charge hourly rates (reportedly up to HK$6,500/hour, approximately US$840/hour). This ensures that compensation reflects the actual workload involved and allows parties to appoint arbitrators with the appropriate subject-matter expertise, even where the monetary value of the claim is modest.

In a dispute requiring 120 to 150 hours of work over several months, the Streamlined Procedure would result in an hourly rate of around S$250 to S$310 per hour, significantly below market expectations for arbitrators with detailed technical experience. The practical risk is that more experienced arbitrators may be reluctant to accept appointment where in-depth technical involvement is required.

If your dispute is likely to involve technical evidence or contested expert analysis, you should consider:

• excluding the Streamlined Procedure at the drafting stage;

or

• applying to exclude the Streamlined Procedure when you are notified that the Streamlined Procedure will apply, so that an arbitrator with the appropriate expertise can be appointed on remuneration terms that reflect the necessary workload.

This helps ensure that the Tribunal has the time and technical capability required to engage properly with the evidence.

4.3 Don’t Lose Your Case Without Being Heard

Under the Streamlined Procedure, there is no entitlement to a hearing or oral evidence unless the Tribunal permits it. This rests on the assumption that disputes below S$1,000,000 can be decided on written submissions alone. In practice, that assumption will not always hold.

A low claim value does not necessarily mean simple facts. Allegations of dishonesty, complex causation, or sharply conflicting accounts of events cannot realistically be resolved by reference to documents alone. Credibility is most reliably assessed through questioning of witnesses, not competing affidavits or contradictory emails. Singapore case law reflects this. In CBS v CBP [2021] SGCA 4, the Singapore Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal needed to hear witnesses “to prove what transpired during the December 2015 meeting” because that oral exchange was “a critical component” of the case. Without hearing those witnesses, the Tribunal would not have been able to determine whether any agreement had been reached.

If the dispute cannot fairly be resolved without witness evidence or some form of hearing, you should object immediately once you are notified that the Streamlined Procedure will apply. An application should be made to exclude the Streamlined Procedure, identifying the factual issues that require examination and explaining why they cannot be resolved properly on documents alone. This should be done before the Streamlined Procedure timetable is fixed.

5. Comparison with the U.S. Approach: Possible Reforms of the SIAC 2025 Rules

The Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”) in the United States (“U.S.”) also provides accelerated arbitration procedures. JAMS was founded in 1979 as Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services by former Californian judge H. Warren Knight. It is a for-profit, U.S.-based alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) institution providing arbitration and mediation services. Today, it is recognised as one of the largest private ADR providers globally. Crucially, unlike other expedited regimes that restrict evidence to save costs, both JAMS’ domestic and international arbitration rules are designed to ensure that a shortened timetable does not compromise the parties’ ability to present the evidence necessary to establish their case.

5.1 Procedural Fairness and Disclosure Of Relied-On Evidence

JAMS requires each party to automatically disclose any non-privileged document it relies on to support its position. In practical terms, if a party intends to rely on invoices, contracts or emails, those documents must be provided to the other side at the outset. This ensures that both sides can see the documents the Tribunal will be asked to consider and can respond properly to the arguments being advanced.

A similar approach could be adopted under the SIAC’s 2025 Rules. Instead of prohibiting document production entirely, the 2025 Rules could require each party to disclose the specific documents it will rely on. The process would remain fast and focused on written submissions, but both sides would still have access to the essential information needed for the Tribunal to determine the dispute on a sound evidential basis.

5.2 Appointment of an Appropriate Arbitrator

Under the JAMS Rules, which generally apply to domestic claims under US$250,000, arbitrators are remunerated on hourly rates rather than on a capped-fee basis. This allows parties to appoint arbitrators with the expertise required for technically complex disputes even where the amount in dispute is modest. Adopting similar flexibility within the SIAC’s 025 Rules would help ensure that arbitrators have the time and capability to engage properly with the evidence.

The JAMS Rules also provide parties with meaningful involvement in the appointment of the arbitrator. For instance, the parties are given a list of candidates and may each strike one name and rank the remainder. This enables them to address concerns about independence or subject-matter suitability directly.

By contrast, the 2025 Rules allow only a 3-day period for the parties to agree on a sole arbitrator. Failing agreement, the arbitrator is then appointed by the SIAC President. In disputes requiring particular technical expertise, this significantly reduces party input at the point where the Tribunal’s qualifications are most important. A possible refinement would be to retain the expedited appointment timeline, but introduce a limited strike-and-rank process where agreement cannot be reached within that initial 3-day window. This would maintain procedural efficiency while increasing confidence that the arbitrator appointed is well-suited to the dispute.

5.3 Availability of Hearings for Disputed Facts

Under the JAMS Rules, a hearing will be held unless both parties agree to waive it. This preserves the ability to call witnesses and test contested facts through questioning, recognising that disputes may involve serious allegations or differing accounts of events regardless of the amount claimed.

This contrasts with the 2025 Rules, which provides no entitlement to a hearing unless the Tribunal permits it. The U.S. approach shows that an accelerated process can remain efficient without restricting a party’s ability to have credibility issues or key factual disputes properly examined. A possible refinement to the 2025 Rules would be to maintain the existing 3-month timetable, while clarifying that a short hearing should ordinarily be granted where either party identifies factual issues that cannot be resolved fairly on written submissions alone.

6. Farallon Law Corporation: Guidance on Navigating SIAC’s Streamlined Procedures 

The Streamlined Procedure is designed for disputes that can be determined on the basis of a limited documentary record, without the need for extensive procedural steps. Where this is the case, it offers a cost-efficient process and provides for a final award to be issued within 3 months of the Tribunal being constituted. As a result, the Streamlined Procedure may be unsuitable where the dispute involves disputed facts, technical issues, or questions of credibility. Once the SIAC Secretariat notifies that the Streamlined Procedure applies, parties should promptly consider whether those constraints allow the dispute to be fairly determined. The 2025 Rules permit an application for the Streamlined Procedure to be excluded, and any such application should explain why additional evidence is required. Similar considerations arise when drafting arbitration clauses, particularly where future disputes are likely to require technical evidence or oral testimony.

Farallon Law Corporation advises clients on arbitration and procedural strategy under the 2025 Rules, including the application of the Streamlined Procedure. Our arbitration lawyers regularly assist clients in assessing whether the Streamlined Procedure is appropriate in light of the issues and evidence involved. For guidance on how the 2025 Rules may affect your arbitration, please contact Farallon Law Corporation by email or via our legal firm’s contact form.