Singapore High Court: Limited Judicial Review of Registrar’s Administrative Decisions

In DMZ v DNA [2025] SGHC 31 the Singapore High Court (SGHC) ruled that it had no jurisdiction to review the SIAC Registrar’s decision to revise the commencement date of an arbitration.

The dispute arose from different sales contracts, all with SIAC arbitration clauses. The claimant filed a notice of arbitration on 24 June 2024, but after a clarification request, the SIAC Registrar initially set 3 July as the commencement date. This led to a time-bar defense by the respondent. The claimant successfully requested a revision to 24 June, which the respondent challenged in court.

The SGHC dismissed the application, emphasizing that under SIAC Rule 40.2 (2016) (and Rule 63.4 (2025)), parties waive any right to appeal the Registrar’s decisions. It found no legal basis to grant a declaration that would contravene the express provisions of the SIAC Rules. The court also clarified that under the International Arbitration Act 1994, it only had the power to intervene in arbitration in specific circumstances, none of which applied to the present case. The respondent’s challenge was therefore deemed an impermissible back-door appeal.

The court affirmed the Registrar’s discretion to reconsider administrative decisions, viewing the revision of the commencement date as an administrative act rather than a substantive ruling. It cited Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc [2021] 2 SLR 354, which held that procedural orders may be revised by a tribunal but not nullified by the court. However, it emphasized that Registrar decisions must comply with the SIAC Rules and general legal principles. Under Article 34(2)(a)(iv) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, an arbitral award could still be set aside if the procedure violated the parties’ agreement.

This judgment reinforces once again Singapore’s pro-arbitration stance by affirming the autonomy of arbitral institutions and limiting judicial intervention in procedural matters.