Singapore Court of Appeal Rejects Attempt to Challenge SIAC Registrar’s Decision Mid-Arbitration

In DMZ v DNA [2025] SGCA 52, the Singapore Court of Appeal (SGCA) reaffirmed the principle of minimal curial intervention, holding that courts will not interfere with ongoing arbitral proceedings unless expressly authorized by statute. The dispute arose after the SIAC Registrar initially determined that an arbitration commenced on 3 July 2024, but later amended that date to 24 June 2024.

The respondent filed the Notice of Arbitration (NOA) against the appellant on June 24, 2024, just days before its claims under five oil sale contracts were due to become time-barred on 1 July 2024. Two days later, on June 26, 2024, the SIAC sought clarification on which arbitration clauses were invoked. The respondent replied by July 3, 2024, confirming that the five contracts each contained arbitration clauses under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)—by which time the limitation period had likely expired.

On July 9, 2024, the SIAC Registrar deemed the arbitration commenced on July 3, 2024. This was based on SIAC Rule 3.3, which provides that arbitration commences when the Registrar receives a complete notice of arbitration or determines there has been substantial compliance with requirements. The Registrar apparently considered the NOA complete only after the respondent's July 3 clarification. He later amended the commencement date to 24 June 2024 —the date the NOA was filed.

The appellant sought to challenge and set aside this Amended Decision, arguing that it was unlawful as it was ultra vires the SIAC Rules, made in breach of the SIAC Rules, and/or made arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably. Because the respondent was subject to insolvency proceedings in Hong Kong, the appellant also sought permission to proceed against it under the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (IRDA).

The High Court dismissed both applications. The Judge held that the court lacked power to review the Amended Decision because the parties were contractually bound by SIAC Rule 40.2, which waives any right of appeal or review of the Registrar's decisions to any judicial authority. Any challenge to procedural irregularities must be brought via a set-aside application under Article 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law after an award is issued. The Judge added that, even if jurisdiction existed, the Registrar was entitled to amend the commencement date. The application was an abuse of process, and indemnity costs were ordered.

On appeal, the SGCA unanimously upheld the High Court's decision. reiterating that Singapore's arbitration framework is built on the foundational principle of minimal curial intervention and party autonomy. By choosing SIAC arbitration, parties accept the institution’s administrative decisions as part of their bargain, including decisions on commencement dates.

Legally, the Court applied a two-step interpretation of Article 5 of the Model Law (incorporated into Singapore law via the IAA): (1) whether the issue is a “matter” governed by the Model Law, and (2) whether the Model Law or IAA expressly allows court intervention. The Court found that whether the SIAC Registrar was entitled to reconsider and amend his prior decision on the commencement date of the arbitration constituted a “matter” under the Model Law, but neither the Model Law nor the IAA provides any basis for mid-arbitration court intervention.

On the SIAC rules, the Court interpreted Rule 40.2 as an enforceable contractual waiver of review, not an unlawful “ouster clause” that impermissibly excluded judicial review. The Court explained that while parties could not seek direct appeal or review of Registrar decisions during the arbitration, they retained the right to challenge any procedural irregularities reflected in the final award through a set-aside application under Article 34 of the Model Law. 

In sum, the Court reaffirmed that Singapore courts will not entertain indirect attempts to appeal or review procedural rulings of arbitral institutions where review is contractually waived. Any alleged errors must be addressed through a set-aside application after the final award is rendered. This decision reinforces Singapore's strong commitment to respecting party autonomy in arbitration and limiting judicial interference to circumstances expressly provided by statute.