15 October 2018
SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Peking University Law School

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Peking University Law School (PKU LAW).

Under the MOU, SIAC and PKU LAW will work together to place law students from PKU in internships at SIAC. In addition, SIAC and PKU LAW will collaborate to incorporate a module on "SIAC and Institutional Arbitration" into the PKU law programme. Upon request by SIAC or PKU LAW, both parties will also conduct joint training programmes, seminars, workshops or other events in China to promote the development and practice of international arbitration.

The MOU was signed on 13 October 2018, at the SIAC Academy training course held in Beijing at PKU, by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Mr Guo Li, Vice Dean of PKU LAW. The signing was witnessed by Mr Han Kok Juan, Deputy Secretary, Singapore Ministry of Law, Mr Pan Jianfeng, Dean of PKU LAW, Mr Gary Born, President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, Ms Fu Yulin, Professor of PKU LAW, Mr Kevin Nash, Deputy Registrar & Centre Director of SIAC and Ms Gao Wei, Associate Professor of PKU LAW.

Mr Gary Born, a pre-eminent authority in international arbitration, was the Chair of the teaching faculty for the SIAC Academy training course in Beijing, which included SIAC Court and Board members, other leading international arbitration practitioners and arbitrators, PKU LAW professors as well as the SIAC Secretariat.

Mr Guo Li, Vice Dean of PKU LAW, said, "We hope the SIAC Academy, which was jointly conducted by SIAC and PKU LAW over the course of the last two days, will be the first of a series of collaborations under the MOU, which will bring together academics and practitioners to share their unique insights and perspectives on international arbitration."

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, "It is a great honour and privilege to be given the opportunity to work closely with PKU LAW, one of the world's leading academic institutions. We firmly believe that this partnership will enable us to jointly promote the benefits of institutional arbitration to future generations of China's international arbitration experts."

For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

12 October 2018
SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) to promote international arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution for resolving international disputes.

The MOU was signed on 12 October 2018 at the inaugural SIAC-CIETAC Beijing Conference on "Effective Resolution of Belt & Road Disputes", by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Mr Wang Chengjie, Vice Chairman and Secretary-General of CIETAC. The signing was witnessed by Mr Han Kok Juan, Deputy Secretary, Singapore Ministry of Law; Mr Lu Pengqi, Vice Chairman, China Council for the Promotion of International Trade; Mr Gary Born, President, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Mr Liu Jingdong, Director of International Economic Law Department, Institute for International Law Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC, Deputy Chairman, SIAC Board of Directors; and Mr Zhao Jian, Vice President, Arbitration Court of CIETAC.

Under the MOU, SIAC and CIETAC will set up a joint working group to discuss SIAC's proposed Cross-Institution Consolidation Protocol. SIAC and CIETAC will also work together to jointly promote international arbitration to serve the needs of businesses. SIAC and CIETAC will hold an annual joint signature event on international arbitration in either China or Singapore. In addition, the institutions will co-organise conferences, seminars and workshops on international arbitration in China and Singapore.

Both institutions will, upon request and where appropriate, provide recommendations of arbitrators to each other, and will, upon request, conduct training programmes for each other's staff. Pursuant to the MOU, CIETAC will also extend the use of its hearing facilities at preferential rates for SIAC arbitrations that are held in China.

Mr Wang Chengjie, Vice Chairman and Secretary-General of CIETAC, said, "We look forward to working closely together with SIAC to extend our outreach efforts to existing and potential users of international arbitration in China and Belt and Road economies."

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, "We are delighted to be entering into this collaboration with CIETAC, and to be holding our inaugural annual joint arbitration event in Beijing to commemorate this special milestone."

For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

27 September 2018
YSIAC Lunchtime Chat with Gary Born
By Tan Jun Hong, Supreme Court of Singapore

On 27 September 2018, YSIAC held a lunchtime fireside chat with Mr Gary Born (President, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Chair, International Arbitration Practice Group, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP) on a wide range of topics including guerrilla tactics, arbitrator challenges, and the management of non-responsive respondents.

Mr Harpreet Singh, SC (Partner, Clifford Chance) delivered the opening remarks and Ms Lijun Chui (Counsel, Clifford Chance) moderated the session.

Guerrilla tactics

Ms Chui began by inviting Mr Born to comment on a speech by Justice Steven Chong, wherein he observed that the flexibility and informality of arbitration have led to an increase in the use of guerrilla tactics to derail arbitration proceedings. Mr Born downplayed this, noting that guerrilla tactics are employed only in the minority of cases. Furthermore, an experienced tribunal would be able to turn the guerrilla tactics against the counsel that employed them.

Mr Born also addressed the concern that arbitrators give parties too much leeway (for example, by allowing them to file submissions out of time, or to make amendments at a late stage) out of fear that the award would be set aside subsequently for the denial of the parties’ right to be heard. While there is some truth to this concern, Mr Born noted that arbitral tribunals not infrequently deny such requests or allow such requests only in part. Arbitrators are also mindful of the parties’ desire to have their dispute resolved efficiently and expeditiously. They do not want the reputation of being afraid of due process and natural justice challenges. Increasingly, arbitrators are being assessed on how quickly they can resolve disputes. On a separate note, one’s freedom fighter is another person’s guerrilla. There may be a legitimate need to employ what the other side may regard as guerrilla tactics (for instance, when there is newly-emerged evidence). Hence, a decision to accede to an application does not necessarily mean that the arbitrator is caving in.

Mr Born gave the following advice to counsel and arbitrators dealing with a party that has employed guerrilla tactics. First, it would be best for counsel to simply ignore or even dismiss such tactics (if possible) to avoid being drawn into satellite disputes over procedural matters that distract from the main substantive dispute. Second, arbitrators should try to defuse any conflict and create a collegial atmosphere as this might help dissuade parties and counsel from employing guerrilla tactics.

The non-responsive respondent

Mr Born expressed the view that non-participation in general is a bad idea as it exposes a party to a default award and the full measure of damages. If the motivation for non-participation is related to jurisdiction reasons, a better option would be to participate and to maintain jurisdictional objections.

From the perspective of the claimant and tribunal, it would be good practice to make every effort to obtain the participation of the respondent. For claimants, making sure that they can subsequently demonstrate that notice of the various stages of the proceedings was given to the respondent is important in order for the arbitral award to be recognised and enforced. Tribunals on the other hand have an obligation to afford the parties an opportunity to present their case. Unless a tribunal is convinced that the defendant has had notice, the obligation would not have been fulfilled. The tribunal should also put the claimant to proof. The tribunal should not make default awards simply based on what the claimant has asked for; instead it must examine the case presented by the claimant and issue a default award based on that.

Arbitrator challenges

Mr Born advised challenged arbitrators to remain objective and to keep a cool head even though he acknowledged that such challenges can be quite personal as the allegation is that the arbitrator lacks the essential moral qualities of independence and impartiality, and has therefore violated his or her mandate. In an appropriate case, if the arbitrator realises he or she is personally engaged, he or she should resign.

Mr Born’s advice for parties who have unsuccessfully challenged an arbitrator is to treat such challenges as water under the bridge and to focus on the substance of the dispute. The usual reaction of the arbitrator to a failed challenge is also to forget about the challenge, especially if it was mounted at an early stage of the proceedings. In any case, even if the arbitrator continues to hold a grudge, there is little that can be done.

Regulation of ethics

Mr Born likened the current world of ethics in international arbitration to a teenager’s bedroom. In an arbitration, there may be competing sets of rules: counsel may be qualified in different jurisdictions, the arbitration may be seated in yet another jurisdiction, and the arbitration may be administered in accordance with an arbitral institution’s rules. By default, everybody’s home ethical rules would apply. Different counsel in the same proceedings may therefore be bound by different ethical rules. This can potentially lead to an unequal playing field as different approaches may be adopted as regards areas such as witness preparation and disclosure.

How then should this problem be addressed? Ms Chui raised Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon’s proposal for a code of conduct to guide international arbitrators and counsel. But Mr Born noted that the difficulty with such a regulatory framework is that any guidelines issued would sit on top of national ethical standards that are applicable to the parties. It is therefore unclear whether another set of guidelines would clean up the teenager’s bedroom or whether it would simply add noise to it. Instead, Mr Born opined that the better way is for bar associations and bar regulatory authorities to reach some form of common agreement on ethics in international arbitration. Bar associations have regulatory impact and they can amend their rules to include specialised rules on arbitration.

While this may seem difficult to implement at first blush, it may not be so if one bears in mind that the focus is solely on ethics in international arbitration and only leading jurisdictions would be involved at least as a first step. And while uniformity may not be achieved, it would be possible to at least achieve some measure of agreement. Mr Born posited that this would be a suggestion well worth the political effort it would take, and expressed hope that Singapore would take the lead.

Concluding remarks

The session closed on that note. The practical tips and insights shared during the session were invaluable, and they related to fertile areas of arbitration law that guerrillas and freedom fighters ought to keep abreast of. In fact, guerrilla tactics were considered for the first time by the Singapore courts in April 2018, when the Singapore High Court in China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and another [2018] SGHC 101 considered whether an award should be set aside on the basis that the respondent had employed guerrilla tactics and had thereby breached an implied duty to arbitrate in good faith. Further developments await.

7 September 2018
SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Xi’an Arbitration Commission

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Xi’an Arbitration Commission (XAAC) to promote international arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution for resolving international disputes.

The MOU was signed on 7 September 2018, by Mr Kevin Nash, Deputy Registrar & Centre Director of SIAC, and Mr Pan Junxing, Vice Director & Secretary General of the Xi’an Arbitration Commission. The signing was witnessed by Mr Han Kok Juan, Deputy Secretary, Singapore Ministry of Law, and Mr Hu Minglang, Vice Governor, People’s Government of Shaanxi Province.

Under the MOU, SIAC and XAAC will work together to jointly promote international arbitration to serve the needs of businesses. SIAC and XAAC will hold an annual joint signature event on international arbitration in either China or Singapore. In addition, the institutions will also co-organise conferences, seminars and workshops on international arbitration in China and Singapore. Both institutions will, upon request and where appropriate, provide recommendations of arbitrators to each other. Pursuant to the MOU, XAAC will also extend the use of its hearing facilities at preferential rates for SIAC arbitrations that are held in China.

Mr Pan Junxing, Vice Director & Secretary General of the Xi’an Arbitration Commission, said, “By working together, SIAC and XAAC can share their expertise and enhanced platform to better support the needs of users along the New Silk Road Economic Belt, which runs from western China to Europe and the Middle East through Central Asia.”

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “Chinese parties are the second top foreign user of SIAC. This collaboration with XAAC will enable us to foster closer ties with investors, companies and businesses in western China, to jointly promote international arbitration as the preferred dispute resolution mechanism for cross-border commercial and investment disputes.”

For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

6 September 2018
YSIAC-YJAA Tokyo Workshop 2018
By Kei Kato, Associate, Orrick (Tokyo office)

On 6 September 2018 in Tokyo, YSIAC held its inaugural joint workshop with YJAA, the young members’ group of the Japan Association of Arbitrators (JAA). The title of the workshop was “Disclosure and Document Production in International Arbitration”, a subject in which young practitioners would have a particularly keen interest because of the countless hours spent on document production. Over forty YSIAC and YJAA members and other practitioners as well as in-house counsel attended the workshop at the Tokyo Office of Nishimura & Asahi, which hosted the event.

The workshop began with a warm welcome address from Ms. Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, who provided a brief overview of the recent developments at SIAC, including, among others, the rapid increase in Japanese users. After that, Ms. Joy Tan, Partner at Wong Partnership LLP, gave an introduction to the case scenario of the mock procedural hearing to be held in the latter half of the workshop.

Session I: Panel Discussion - Document Production and Management in International Arbitration; Discovering to Win

The initial session was a panel discussion moderated by Mr. Aoi Inoue, Member of both the YSIAC Committee and the YJAA Committee, and Partner at Anderson Mori & Tomotsune. The panellists included: Mr. Michael Crowther, Vice President at Deloitte Tohmatsu Financial Advisory LLC; Mr. Peter Harris, Counsel at Clifford Chance; Ms. Azusa Saito, Senior Associate at Nishimura & Asahi; Mr. Tsuyoshi Suzuki, President of YJAA and Partner at Momo-o Matsuo & Namba; and Mr. Joaquin Terceño, Counsel at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP.

At the outset, Mr. Suzuki gave an introductory presentation: “What is Disclosure and Why Is It Important in International Arbitration,” where he explained the practical importance of disclosure and discovery, such as (i) there are no default rules, (ii) they can materially affect the outcome of the case, and (iii) they might incur substantive costs. Ms. Saito spoke about “Common Law v. Civil Law Approaches,” including the difference in these approaches, how they are harmonised in the field of international arbitration, and practical tips to limit potential uncertainty. Mr. Terceño explained about “The IBA Rules, SIAC Rules, and Redfern Schedules,” all of which are important sources related to disclosure and document production issues in the face of a lack of guidance from the lex arbitri. Mr. Crowther offered a different perspective on “Document Management - Tools to Make the Process Easy and Cost Efficient,” for instance, how to utilise the advanced technologies like cognitive coding to manage the voluminous amount of data. Mr. Harris closed the session with a personal case study “The DPR from Hell,” which detailed his experiences with document production and the lessons he learned.

The audience appreciated the diverse topics presented by the panellists from different perspectives and countries, and was able to gain insights and best practices, as well as practical tips from the up-and-coming leaders of international arbitration.

Session II: Hearing on Document Requests - Oral Submissions

The second session was a mock procedural hearing on document requests based on a realistic case scenario about a dispute stemming from a joint venture project. The mock Tribunal consisted of Mr. Hiroyuki Tezuka, Member of the SIAC Court of Arbitration and Partner at Nishimura & Asahi; Ms. Tan; and Mr. Ng Kim Beng, Partner at Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP. Arguing for the Claimant was Mr. Takashi Ohno, Associate at Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu, whilst Ms. Eriko Kadota, Associate at Herbert Smith Freehills and Mr. Yoshinori Tatsuno, Associate at Mori Hamada & Matsumoto, argued for the Respondent.

In this case, the Claimant sought production of four categories of documents, and the Respondent raised objections to each of these requests. For each category of documents, counsel to the Claimant argued relevance and materiality of the documents to substantiate their request, and counsel to the Respondent argued grounds to bar the Claimant’s request. Both then were interrogated by the Tribunal. The members discussed legal issues that would frequently appear in actual document production, such as how to balance confidentiality with transparency and how to narrow down the scope of the documents requested. Towards the end of the session, the mock Tribunal gave valuable feedback, where they shared their experiences as seasoned practitioners.

The mock session was a rare opportunity for young participants to enhance their knowledge of the procedural and substantive aspects of document production, and also to develop their oral advocacy skills through passionate oral arguments by counsel.

After the two sessions, Mr. Tsuyoshi Suzuki delivered Closing Remarks on behalf of YJAA, where he expressed gratitude to YSIAC for organising the event and noted the importance of collaboration between YJAA and YSIAC.

The workshop was followed by an opportunity for the audience to enjoy drinks and to mingle with the leading young practitioners and prominent leaders in the field.

24 August 2018
SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) to promote international arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution for resolving international disputes.

The MOU was signed at the 9th Singapore-Guangdong Collaboration Council meeting on 24 August 2018, by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Dr Liu Xiaochun, President of the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration. The signing was witnessed by the Co-Chairmen of the Council, Singapore Minister for Education Ong Ye Kung and Guangdong Governor Ma Xingrui.

Under the MOU, SIAC and SCIA will work together to jointly promote international arbitration to serve the needs of businesses. SIAC and SCIA will hold an annual joint signature event on international arbitration in either China or Singapore. In addition, the institutions will also co-organise conferences, seminars and workshops on international arbitration in China and Singapore. Both institutions will, upon request and where appropriate, provide recommendations of arbitrators to each other. Pursuant to the MOU, SCIA will also extend the use of its hearing facilities at preferential rates for SIAC arbitrations that are held in China.

By working together, SIAC and SCIA can share their expertise and networks to better support the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area and help connect the Greater Bay Area with the rest of Asia and the rest of the world.

Dr Liu Xiaochun, President of the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration, said, "We are confident that the MOU will provide both institutions with an enhanced platform to extend our outreach efforts to existing and potential users of international arbitration in China and Belt and Road economies, across a range of industry sectors including construction, infrastructure, energy, maritime and finance."

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, commented that "This MOU represents a key milestone in our commitment and ongoing efforts to work closely with SCIA and other Chinese arbitral institutions to promote international arbitration to Chinese investors, companies and businesses as the preferred mode of dispute resolution for the resolution of cross-border commercial and investment disputes, particularly in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative."

For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

17 May 2018
The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon: Keynote Address delivered at the SIAC Congress 2018

At the SIAC Congress 2018 held in Singapore on 17 May 2018, The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Supreme Court of Singapore, gave an insightful keynote speech on the special role and responsibility of arbitral institutions in charting the future of international arbitration.

The growth of institutional arbitration is very much a feature of international arbitration's "golden age". By providing administrative and logistical support and pre-established rules and procedures, arbitral institutions have paved the way for its widespread adoption. Over time, arbitral institutions have morphed from private service providers, concerned only with commercial matters, to quasi-public bodies involved in the development, organisation, and promotion of international arbitration.

In his address, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon discussed some of the challenges that come with this expanded role, and set out his thoughts on the ways in which arbitral institutions such as the SIAC can and must take the lead in securing the future of the industry in the face of the challenges that lie ahead.

The full text of the speech may be found here.

14 - 18 May 2018
SIAC Congress Week

The SIAC Congress Week brought together distinguished members of the judiciary, the SIAC Board of Directors, the SIAC Court of Arbitration, and other leading international arbitration experts for a lively and interesting series of seminars, debates and a workshop.

SIAC would like to thank all speakers, sponsors and participants for their many contributions to the success of the SIAC Congress Week.

It was a great privilege and pleasure to have our guests of honour, The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Supreme Court of Singapore, Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister for Finance, Singapore and Ms Indranee Rajah, SC, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and Second Minister for Finance and Education, Singapore, grace us with their presence at the SIAC Congress.

The various reports on the SIAC Congress Week can be accessed here.

10 May 2018
SIAC is Most Preferred Arbitral Institution in Asia and 3^rd in the World

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that in the latest Queen Mary University of London International Arbitration Survey (QMUL Survey) released on 9 May 2018, SIAC ranked as the most preferred arbitral institution in Asia, and 3rd out of the top 5 arbitral institutions in the world.

The QMUL Survey is in its eighth edition and is one of the most prestigious International Arbitration surveys in the market. QMUL stated that this year’s QMUL Survey is the most “comprehensive empirical study” ever conducted by the university, with findings based on the questionnaire responses of 922 participants, including in-house counsel, arbitrators, firm practitioners, the staff of arbitral institutions, expert witnesses and third-party funders. 142 interviews were also conducted.

Singapore is the 3^rd most preferred seat worldwide, after London and Paris, and ahead of Hong Kong, Geneva, New York and Stockholm. Singapore is the most preferred seat in Asia.

Mr Gary Born, President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, commented, “The QMUL Survey confirms recent caseload statistics: Singapore and SIAC are preferred, around the world, as forums for resolving international disputes. We are committed to delivering the expertise, efficiency and independence that business and other users seek.”

Mr Davinder Singh, SC, Chairman of SIAC, said, “The survey findings firmly underscore Singapore’s and SIAC’s position at the forefront of international arbitration in the world.”

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, added, “We are truly delighted with this milestone achievement, which would not have been possible without the continued unwavering support of our users around the world. We are deeply grateful and appreciative of the trust they have placed in us.”


For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

8 May 2018
SIAC Announces Appointment of New Court Vice President

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce the appointment of Prof Lucy Reed as a Vice President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration with effect from 29 June 2018. Prof Reed succeeds Mr John Savage QC, who previously served as a member of the SIAC Board of Directors from 2009 to 2017, and concurrently served as a Vice President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration from 2013 to March 2018. Mr Savage will continue to serve as a member of the SIAC Court.

Prof Reed is the Director of the Centre for International Law and Professor on the Law Faculty of the National University of Singapore. She previously led the global international arbitration group in Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, and has represented private and public clients in investment treaty and commercial arbitrations for more than 35 years. She now sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial and investment treaty cases.

Prof Reed said of her appointment, “I am honoured and excited to be taking on this role, and look forward to working closely with Gary, Cavinder and other SIAC Court members and the SIAC Secretariat to ensure that SIAC stays right at the very top of global arbitral institutions.”

Mr Gary Born, President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, commented, “I am delighted to welcome Lucy as our new Vice President. She brings with her a wealth of experience and deep specialist knowledge in both commercial as well as investment arbitration. Her impressive reputation and professionalism will further enhance the international standing and profile of SIAC. We are deeply appreciative to John for his many insightful contributions during his term as Vice President, and for his continued support as a member of the SIAC Court.”

Following this latest appointment, the members of the SIAC Court of Arbitration are as follows:

1.	Mr Gary Born – Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, UK (President)
2.	Mr Cavinder Bull, SC – Drew & Napier LLC, Singapore (Vice President)
3.	Prof Lucy Reed – Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore, Singapore (Vice President)
4.	Dr Michael Pryles AO PBM – Melbourne, Australia (Founder President)
5.	Ms Catherine Amirfar – Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, USA
6.	Dr Claudia Annacker – Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, France
7.	Mr Nigel Blackaby - Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, USA
8.	Prof Lawrence Boo – The Arbitration Chambers, Singapore
9.	Mr Cao Lijun – Zhong Lun Law Firm, China
10.	Mr Paul Friedland – White & Case LLP, USA
11.	Mr Emmanuel Gaillard– Shearman & Sterling LLP, France
12.	Prof Bernard Hanotiau – Hanotiau & van den Berg, Belgium
13.	Mr Darius Khambata, SC – India
14.	Mr Toby Landau QC – Essex Court Chambers, UK
15.	Dr Eun Young Park – Kim & Chang, Korea
16.	Prof Jan Paulsson – Three Crowns LLP, USA
17.	Mr Harish Salve, SC – Blackstone Chambers, India
18.	Mr John Savage QC – King & Spalding LLP, UK
19.	Mr Hiroyuki Tezuka – Nishimura & Asahi, Japan
20.	Mr Alan Thambiayah – The Arbitration Chambers, Singapore
21.	Ms Ariel Ye – King & Wood Mallesons, China
22.	Mr Alvin Yeo, SC – WongPartnership LLP, Singapore

For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

23 April 2018
A Three-Part Workshop: “Arbitration at the SIAC: The Inside Track”

Workshop 3: Applications under the SIAC Rules 2016

On 23 April 2018, the finale of a three-part workshop on arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) was successfully held by SIAC and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Singapore (CIArb, Singapore). The workshop was attended by arbitrators, practitioners, in-house counsel and third-party funders, who were eager to hear the Secretariat’s views on the various applications that may be made under the SIAC Rules.

Similar to the first two workshops, the final leg commenced with a welcome address by Ms Camilla Godman (Regional Director, CIArb), where the primacy of various applications under the SIAC Rules was addressed. Ms Godman then concluded her address by introducing the moderator of the day, Mr Timothy Cooke (Partner, Stephenson Harwood LLP) and the panel from SIAC, Mr Kevin Nash (Deputy Registrar & Centre Director, SIAC), Ms Khyati Raniwala (Associate Counsel, SIAC) and Ms Qian Wu (Associate Counsel, SIAC).

In the course of the discussion, the panel offered their insights on various procedures under the SIAC Rules, such as the emergency arbitrator, jurisdictional objection, early dismissal, joinder, multiple contracts and consolidation, and expedited procedure. The panel shed light on practical issues such as the tests generally adopted by emergency arbitrators in determining whether to grant emergency interim relief, the difference between the tests of “exceeding the scope of its jurisdiction” and “manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal” under Rules 28.3(b) and 29.1(b) of the SIAC Rules 2016, how the institution treated confidentiality of an arbitration in the event a non-party was joined to the arbitration, and the meaning of each criteria under Rule 8.1 for the consolidation of arbitrations.

The participants took the opportunity to seek the Secretariat’s views on some interesting issues relating to the various procedures. One of which was whether it would be helpful for parties, who would like to facilitate consolidation to the maximum extent possible, to include express language in the arbitration agreement consenting to consolidation. The panel explained that although such language might be sufficient to bring in an application, the circumstances and the extent to which the parties wished to consolidate the arbitrations in the event of a dispute would nonetheless be examined. Mr Nash also stressed that even with an agreement on consolidation, the “stamp of approval” by the SIAC Court was still required.

The workshop concluded with Mr Cooke thanking the participants for coming not only to the finale but also the other two workshops. Mr Cooke then expressed his gratitude to the panel from SIAC for taking the time to share their insights with the attendees.

22 March 2018
Authors rate SIAC as Most Cost-Competitive and Efficient International Arbitral Institution

In a recent article by CMS Holborn Asia and the Society of International Law (Singapore), titled “Costs and Duration: A Comparison of the HKIAC, LCIA, SCC and SIAC Studies”, the authors concluded that “SIAC remains the most cost-competitive option for both sole-arbitrator and three-arbitrator cases” and that “for three-arbitrator cases in particular, SIAC remains significantly cheaper than LCIA and SCC where the costs extend to six-digit figures”. According to the article, SIAC arbitrations are “the most efficient in comparison to the other arbitral institutions”.

The authors said that they compared the latest figures released by HKIAC, LCIA, SCC and SIAC in their respective costs and duration studies. They presented the following conclusions:

The article added that “based on a comparison of the four studies, the costs and duration of arbitral proceedings are ostensibly most attractive when administered by SIAC”.

A copy of the article may be accessed here.

Further details on SIAC’s Costs and Duration Study may be found here.


For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

7 March 2018
SIAC Annual Appreciation Event 2018

SIAC’s Annual Appreciation Event took place on 7 March 2018 in Singapore and attracted a record turnout of 240 members from the local and international arbitration communities.

The evening commenced with a Welcome Address from Mr Davinder Singh, SC, Chairman of SIAC, who announced that SIAC had received a record 452 new cases, and administered 93% or 421 of the cases filed in 2017.

Mr Singh thanked the SIAC Board and Court members for their dedication and support for SIAC’s various initiatives, as well as the management and staff of SIAC for their contributions to SIAC’s goals.

In her opening remarks, Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, noted that 2017 was a year of firsts and innovations that included the proposal for a cross-institution consolidation protocol, the inaugural SIAC Academy and the first-ever SIAC-CIL Academic-Practitioner Colloquium. Ms Lim gave special thanks, on behalf of everyone at SIAC, to Mr Singh and Mr Born for their inspirational leadership and support.

Mr Gary Born, President of the Court of Arbitration of SIAC, presented SIAC’s key case statistics for 2017, concluding that SIAC’s success could be attributed to its continued commitment to innovate and be responsive to the needs of its users.

7 March 2018
SIAC Announces New Records for 2017

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce the official release of its 2017 Annual Report.

2017 saw SIAC set a new record for the highest number of new case filings and administered cases. SIAC’s caseload continues to grow year on year, and has increased by more than 5 times in the last decade.

In 2017, SIAC received 452 new cases from parties in 58 countries in 6 continents. This was a 32% increase from the 343 cases filed in 2016 and a 67% increase from the 271 cases filed in 2015.

SIAC administered 93% or 421 of the cases filed in 2017. The aggregate sum in dispute for all new case filings amounted to USD4.07 billion (SGD5.44 billion).

Whilst India and China remained significant contributors to SIAC’s caseload, SIAC’s top ten foreign user rankings also saw new entrants from Europe and the Middle East, underscoring SIAC’s global appeal to users from diverse legal systems and cultures.

Further details of SIAC’s case numbers are available in the 2017 Annual Report.

Mr Gary Born, President of the Court of Arbitration of SIAC, said, “SIAC has seen significant increases in its caseload each year and more parties from a growing number of jurisdictions, which is a testament both to user confidence as well as SIAC’s international reach and standing as a premier global arbitral institution.”

Mr Davinder Singh, SC, Chairman of SIAC, commented, “SIAC is where it is today because of Singapore’s reputation for integrity and the rule of law, its status as a trusted and sophisticated hub and the Singapore Courts’ support for and active contribution to the development of the law and practice of international arbitration. I would like to thank the SIAC Court of Arbitration, the Board of Directors and the excellent management and staff of SIAC for their invaluable contributions and relentless pursuit of SIAC’s goals.”

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “We are delighted to have recorded another milestone achievement. This will keep us firmly motivated to do better. My team and I would like to thank our partners and friends in the local and international legal and business communities for their continued faith in SIAC.”


For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

7 March 2018
A Three-Part Workshop: “Arbitration at the SIAC: The Inside Track”

Workshop 2: Starting an Arbitration

On 7 March 2018, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Singapore (CIArb, Singapore) successfully co-organised the second of a three-part workshop on arbitration at SIAC. The workshop, which attracted an excellent turnout of attendees from law firms, arbitral institutions, and private companies, sought to offer a behind-the-scenes glimpse into the commencement of arbitral proceedings at SIAC.

The workshop kicked-off with a Welcome Address by Ms Camilla Godman (Regional Director, CIArb) who stressed that “getting all the elements right at the start of an arbitration is critical not just for limitation reasons but also the ultimate creation of an enforceable award”.

The session was moderated by Mr Timothy Cooke (Partner, Stephenson Harwood LLP) and the panel of speakers comprised Ms Delphine Ho (Registrar, SIAC), Mr Kendista Wantah (Associate Counsel, SIAC), and Ms Allison Goh (Associate Counsel, SIAC). The panel discussed various potential issues that a lawyer or a party may face when commencing an arbitration, and offered their insights on these issues from an institutional perspective.

Amongst others, the discussion touched on practical topics including what would amount to a “complete” or “substantially complete” Notice of Arbitration for the purpose of commencing an arbitration at SIAC, issues involving a non-paying respondent in an SIAC- administered arbitration and the approach taken by SIAC when dealing with ambiguous arbitration agreements.

The panel shared their experiences and elaborated on the rationale behind the institution’s approach under the SIAC Rules on these issues. Of particular interest to the attendees was SIAC’s considerations when determining the amount of deposits payable, especially in cases involving substantial counterclaims. The Registrar, Ms Ho highlighted the importance for parties to provide an estimated quantification of their claims early in the case to avoid “surprises”.

The workshop ended on a high note with the panel addressing further burning questions from the attendees on, inter alia, the consolidation mechanism under the SIAC Rules and appointments by SIAC in ad hoc arbitrations. To end the session, Mr Cooke expressed his gratitude to the panel from SIAC for taking their time to share their insights with the attendees.

2 March 2018
YSIAC Debate

By Melissa Mak, Senior Associate, Allen & Gledhill LLP

“Tribunals with women arbitrators make better decisions.” As is well known, in a relationship, one person is always right and the other person is male – surely, this must be good counsel when selecting an arbitrator, where judgment and perceptiveness are crucial attributes.

The YSIAC Debate held on 2 March 2018 sought to challenge this received wisdom. The moderator for the debate was Mr Chelva Rajah, SC (Member, SIAC Board of Directors, Managing Partner, Tan Rajah & Cheah). Arguing for the motion – and ostensibly with the “easier” task – was the duo of Mr Toby Landau QC (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Barrister and Arbitrator, Essex Court Chambers) and Mr Paul Tan (Partner, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP), with brains and beauty to spare. Arguing against the motion were the formidable team of Ms Deborah Barker, SC (Managing Partner, Withers KhattarWong) and Ms Jae Hee Suh (Associate, Allen & Overy), who persuaded the packed audience of 128 attendees with impassioned advocacy (and song).

This debate was a timely one, coming slightly less than two years after the arbitration community drew up the Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge, with signatories committing to diversify the pool of arbitrators and improve the profile and representation of women in arbitrations.

Mr Tan fired the opening salvo with the central thesis that women outperform men in personal qualities that were relevant to arbitral decision making – women tended to have more initiative and creativity, and displayed honesty and social awareness. Citing various statistical studies (as well as anecdotal evidence that women were smarter and live longer), Mr Tan presented a compelling case in favour of the participation of women on arbitral tribunals to improve decision making.

Mr Tan’s arguments were met with a confident rebuttal from Ms Jae Hee Suh, who challenged the underlying assumption in the motion that women arbitrators had to make “better” decisions to justify their appointments to arbitral tribunals. She argued that gender should make no difference to decision-making: expertise and efficiency bore little correlation to one’s gender. Women arbitrators should be appointed on an equal opportunity basis, and not because of their gender. Ms Jae concluded that supporting the motion would harm, instead of support, women, by perpetuating gender stereotypes and suggesting that the participation of women in arbitral tribunals was no more than a form of tokenism.

Following on the heels of Ms Jae’s challenge to the idea that woman had to show that they have a “right” to be there, Mr Landau presented yet another perspective that focussed on the importance of diversity in group decision-making. Quite apart from the fact that women might have specific personal qualities and characteristics that lent themselves to the process of decision-making, the individual skills of a diverse group collectively contributed to greater group intelligence and translated to greater collaboration in making sense of evidence and submissions. Mr Landau explained that “better” might not just mean right or wrong, but whether a decision was regarded by users as legitimate and acceptable. Gender diversity was a fact of the modern world, and the composition of tribunals should reflect this.

Ms Barker responded, to rapturous applause from the audience, by breaking out the ukulele and in song with the aptly titled song “Man Smart, Woman Smarter”. The lyrics speak for themselves: “And not me but the people they say; That the men are leading the women astray; But I say, that the women of today; Smarter than the man in every way.” Ms Barker asked, rhetorically: how would the inclusion of females improve decision making? The oft-quoted description of arbitrators as a “male, pale and stale” group that would somehow benefit from the participation of women undermined the wider issues of unconscious bias and lack of equal opportunities that have contributed to the imbalance.

At the end of this spirited debate, the audience spoke, and awarded the debate to Ms Barker and Ms Jae. What appeared at first to be a straightforward motion reflected the nature of the complex and multi-faceted debate on inclusivity in the community. Whilst the concept was widely supported, the unconscious bias in the system cannot be changed by the mere assertion that tribunals with woman arbitrators are “better”. The women were still right on this score.

24 January 2018
A Three-Part Workshop: “Arbitration at the SIAC: The Inside Track”

Workshop 1: The SIAC Court and the SIAC Secretariat

Kicking off a new three-part series of workshops co-organised by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Singapore (CIArb, Singapore), the first session of “Arbitration at the SIAC: The Inside Track”, was held on 24 January 2018.

Eager to gain a glimpse behind the proverbial curtain at SIAC, a packed crowd comprising both young and experienced practitioners, in-house counsel and arbitrators came to hear Mr Gary Born (President, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Chair, International Arbitration Practice Group, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP), Mr Kevin Nash (Deputy Registrar & Centre Director, SIAC), Ms Aliona Bitkivskaja (Associate Counsel, SIAC), Mr Christopher Bloch (Associate Counsel, SIAC), and moderator Mr Timothy Cooke (Partner, Stephenson Harwood LLP), expound on the roles and interplay between the SIAC Court and the SIAC Secretariat.

With Mr Born present to weigh in on how the President and the SIAC Court dealt with some of the applications filed by parties under the SIAC Rules 2016, including applications for emergency arbitration, Expedited Procedure, consolidation and joinder, and prima facie decisions on jurisdiction, participants were able to gain valuable insights on how to develop an effective case strategy in cases administered under the SIAC Rules.

In terms of procedure, Mr Born noted that the President and the SIAC Court would look to the Secretariat to brief them on the facts, procedural complexities and competing arguments for each case. This briefing allowed the President and the Court Members to perform a detailed analysis of the merits of each application in complex cases where time was often of the essence. For efficiency, many of these applications to the SIAC Court were handled by a three-member ‘Committee’ of the SIAC Court.

Unsurprisingly, one of the hottest topics raised by the audience related to various provisions in the SIAC Rules concerned with speed and costs, showing that this remained an important factor for parties.

The first of these topics to be addressed was the revision to the emergency arbitration provisions in the SIAC Rules 2016 – namely the switch to a flat fee for emergency arbitrators (revised from the prior ad valorem scale where emergency arbitrators’ fees were capped at 20% of a sole arbitrator’s fee cap under the SIAC Rules 2013). Mr Nash noted that SIAC had seen this as an important change, noting that “there has been an uptick in the number of EA applications coming in since the amendment, presumably because of the greater predictability and cost savings with the new fixed fee”.

Mr Bloch noted anecdotally that “parties often file their emergency arbitrations just before close of business on either a Friday night or eve of a public holiday – clearly a strategic decision on their part – but with our tight timelines, SIAC [would] get the emergency arbitrator appointed and underway, whether that [meant] being in the office on Saturday or over Chinese New Year”. The pro tip received: Give SIAC an indication that you would be preparing to file an emergency arbitration so that the internal processes can be begun to ensure the quickest turnaround possible.

Another “special procedure” which received much attention for its time and cost saving potential was SIAC’s Expedited Procedure, which allowed for a dispute to be heard, from constitution of the tribunal to final award, within 6 months. In response to questions on timelines, the Secretariat confirmed that the overwhelming majority of tribunals were able to meet the deadline. Mr Born explained that this may be due to the robust approach adopted by SIAC in consideration of these applications. For instance, even if an application for Expedited Procedure met any of the threshold criterion under Rule 5.1 of the SIAC Rules, the President maintained the discretion to reject the application where the surrounding circumstances suggested that the regular procedure should be maintained. In 2017, SIAC received 107 applications for Expedited Procedure, and of those, 55 have been accepted, a 51% acceptance rate.

As the discussion moved to the finer points of the Expedited Procedure, the panel received a comment on the possibility of SIAC affirmatively taking into account the efficiency with which an arbitrator dealt with a dispute when determining the costs of the arbitration, noting that sometimes it was substantially more difficult for an arbitrator to hear a case on a short timeframe and issue a quick award. The question then followed as to “whether an arbitrator should be paid more for efficient handling of an Expedited Procedure case?” Upon a straw poll being conducted by Mr Born on the spot, the crowd seemed split, but the majority were receptive to this proposal.

In addition to questions on these special procedures, there was significant interest from the audience on the general financial management of arbitrations and remuneration of tribunals in SIAC-administered cases. When discussing the fee structure, Ms Bitkivskaja noted that the SIAC Rules 2016 provided for a default ad valorem fee scale which linked the fees to the amount in dispute, but also noted that parties were free to agree to alternative remuneration for arbitrators. She described one method of alternative remuneration that SIAC had encountered which she coined a “hybrid” system – where arbitrators were paid on an hourly basis, but their fees were capped based on the amount in dispute. In this regard, Ms Bitkivskaja explained that SIAC’s Schedule of Fees (and even such a hybrid system) gave parties visibility on the potential costs of arbitration, “allowing parties to control their financial exposure and budgets”.

As this was the opening salvo to the three-part series, the panel set the tone for the full and frank discussion of the SIAC Secretariat’s processes and procedures. Mr Cooke summarised that the participants had confirmed what he had previously suspected – namely, that there was an incredible amount of interest from the community in getting a look behind the curtain and gaining insight on how SIAC, and institutions generally, operate.

As we welcome the new year, we look back fondly at some of the highlights of 2017.

We would like to express our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to members of the SIAC Board, Court and the YSIAC Committee as well as all of our partners and friends in the local and international legal and business communities for their many contributions and consistent support.


With best regards,
The SIAC Team

19 December 2017
Proposal on Cross-Institution Consolidation Protocol

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce its proposal on cross-institution cooperation for the consolidation of international arbitral proceedings. The SIAC proposal, which was initiated by Mr Gary Born, the President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, is detailed in letters from Mr Born to other international arbitral institutions together with an attached memorandum. The memorandum proposes the adoption of a protocol by arbitral institutions permitting the cross-institution consolidation of arbitral proceedings subject to different institutional arbitration rules.

Through institutional cooperation, the cross-institution consolidation proposal is designed to facilitate the efficient and enforceable resolution of international commercial disputes, which will lead to significant gains for parties. Mr Born commented, “We welcome cooperation with other leading arbitral institutions around the world in further enhancing the efficiency and efficacy of the arbitral process. The cross-institution consolidation protocol is an important step in this direction and we look forward to working with our colleagues at other institutions in implementing the proposal.”

Rules on consolidation, joinder and intervention in international arbitration play an important role in the international arbitral process. By allowing related issues to be resolved in a single proceeding, consolidation permits more efficient and cost-effective dispute resolution, whilst minimising the risk of inconsistent decisions in related disputes.

These benefits have led a number of arbitral institutions to adopt provisions in their institutional rules that allow the consolidation of related disputes and/or the joinder of additional parties. The 2016 SIAC Arbitration Rules contain a state-of-the art set of provisions for consolidation, as do the rules of other leading arbitral institutions, including the International Chamber of Commerce Court of Arbitration (ICC).

Importantly, however, the consolidation provisions of existing institutional rules of leading arbitral institutions do not permit the consolidation of arbitrations that are subject to different sets of institutional arbitration rules (for example, SIAC and ICC arbitrations), even if they satisfy the other criteria for consolidation. Instead, existing institutional rules provide for the consolidation of arbitral proceedings only where the parties’ various arbitration agreements are compatible, including by incorporating the same institutional arbitration rules. Thus, a SIAC arbitration can be consolidated with another SIAC arbitration, but not with an ICC arbitration; likewise, an ICC arbitration can be consolidated with another ICC arbitration, but an ICC arbitration cannot be consolidated with a SIAC arbitration.

The lack of any existing mechanism for “cross-institution” consolidation of arbitrations subject to different institutional arbitration rules substantially limits the types of disputes that can be consolidated. In turn, this prevents related disputes, which otherwise meet the criteria for consolidation, from being heard together and thus limits the ability of arbitration to reach its full potential as a dispute resolution mechanism to serve the needs of users.

SIAC has sought to address this shortcoming in the existing treatment of consolidation by arbitral institutions through enhanced institutional cooperation. In particular, the efficiency and efficacy of the international arbitral process would be materially improved by the adoption of a consolidation protocol by leading arbitral institutions, providing for the cross-institution consolidation of arbitrations, where such proceedings otherwise satisfy the criteria for consolidation.

Mr Born and SIAC have therefore proposed a cross-institution consolidation protocol, which leading arbitral institutions could adopt and incorporate into their institutional arbitration rules and utilise for administering consolidated arbitrations:

a. The consolidation protocol would set out a new, standalone mechanism for addressing the timing of consolidation applications, the appropriate decision-maker (i.e. the institution(s) or the tribunal) and the applicable criteria to determine when arbitral proceedings are sufficiently related to warrant cross-institution consolidation. A joint committee appointed from members of the Courts or Boards of the concerned arbitral institutions would be mandated to decide the applications, with a specific committee being appointed for each application.

b. Once consolidated, the proceedings should be administered only by one institution applying its own arbitration rules. The institutions can agree on objective criteria to determine which institution should administer the consolidated dispute, such as the number of disputes subject to the different rules or the time of commencement of the first proceeding.

The arbitral institutions’ rules would be amended to incorporate the consolidation protocol. By adopting the institutional rules in their arbitration agreements, parties would in turn give the protocol the same contractual force as other provisions of the institutional rules. The consolidation protocol would not change the current requirement that the arbitration agreements designate the same seat.

The consolidation of arbitral proceedings offers important benefits to parties that help reduce the complexity, cost and time of proceedings. The cross-institution consolidation of arbitrations under different institutional rules takes these benefits further, making arbitration an even more effective system of dispute resolution.

Mr Davinder Singh, SC, Chairman of SIAC, observed that “SIAC is indebted to Mr Born for his continuing efforts to enhance SIAC’s role in thought leadership. Arbitral institutions play an increasingly important role in progressing international arbitration and SIAC is confident that this proposal offers arbitral institutions the opportunity to engage once again in thought-leadership.”

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, commented, “This proposal represents an opportunity for arbitral institutions to cooperate in the joint development of a framework for complex arbitrations, and materially enhance the international arbitral process.”

The memorandum that discusses SIAC’s proposal for cross-institution consolidation can be accessed here, and comments on the proposal can be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. by 31 January 2018.

SIAC looks forward to receiving comments from, and working together with, users and other arbitral institutions to further explore and implement the proposal for cross-institution consolidation.


For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

9 November 2017
SIAC-KCAB Seminar on Multiple Proceedings in Multiple Fora - Strategies and Synergies

By Richard Jung Yeun Won, Foreign Attorney, Shin & Kim

The SIAC-KCAB joint seminar, “Multiple Proceedings in Multiple Fora – Strategies and Synergies”, covered everything one would expect and more from a seminar addressing a pertinent and timely topic in the ever-evolving world of international arbitration.

SIAC and KCAB jointly hosted the seminar at Seoul Global Center on 9 November 2017, as part of the week-long Seoul ADR Festival. Over 75 practitioners and in-house counsel attended the event, thanks to the all-star lineup of speakers and panellists who addressed joinder and consolidation provisions as a means to improve efficiency when dealing with multiple parties, contracts, and claims.

Ms Lim Seok Hui (CEO, SIAC and SIMC) welcomed the attendees by stressing the importance of time and cost considerations when developing strategies for cross-border projects and transactions. She also articulated a vision in which Singapore and Seoul would work in synchrony as arbitration hubs in the APAC region, as what the arbitration hubs of Paris and Geneva had done for Europe.

Professor Lucy Reed (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Director, Centre for International Law (Singapore); Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore) delivered the Keynote Address by describing how national laws and arbitration rules were in conflict, and how each jurisdiction had the responsibility to respect the rules of other jurisdictions while fulfilling its own responsibilities and duties to the parties. While she stressed the importance of joinder and consolidation provisions as tools to overcome consent requirements when adding additional parties, she also wondered if, in practice, joinder and consolidation provisions actually improved efficiency of the arbitral proceedings and led to cost savings for the parties.

The first panel session included leading arbitrators and practitioners from across Asia, with each panellist wearing the hat of a different arbitral institution to discuss the different joinder and consolidation rules. Mr Kap-You (Kevin) Kim (Chair, International Arbitration Committee, KCAB; Head, International Arbitration & Litigation Practice Group, Bae, Kim & Lee LLC) was the moderator for the first panel session, which included panellists Mr Beomsu Kim (Managing Partner, KL Partners), Dr Eun Young Park (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Partner, Kim & Chang), Professor Lucy Reed, and Mr Paul Sandosham (Partner, Clifford Chance).

Some notable points included:

• Professor Lucy Reed, representing the ICC in this role-play, noted that with respect to making final decisions regarding consolidation and joinder, the ICC court was the main actor when there was a dispute, and not the tribunal;

• Mr Paul Sandosham, representing SIAC, noted that applications for joinder and consolidation could be made to the SIAC court or the tribunal, essentially providing applicants two separate opportunities to join a party or consolidate claims, thereby making SIAC’s rules an attractive choice;

• Dr Eun Young Park, representing the LCIA, noted that the power to join or consolidate lay with the tribunal, but that the power to approve lay with the LCIA court; and

• Mr Beomsu Kim, representing the KCAB, noted how the simpler and more straightforward KCAB rules, which implemented a joinder provision in 2016, only allowed for parties to the current arbitration to apply for joinder and not third parties such as in other jurisdictions.

The afternoon’s second panel session included younger attorneys from a broad spectrum of international arbitration practices in Asia. Ms Sae Youn Kim (Partner, Yulchon LLC), in moderating the panel, likened the experienced panellists of the first session to “generals” and the panellists of the second session to “soldiers” who executed the generals’ commands. The afternoon’s “soldiers” included Ms Dana Kim (Of Counsel, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP), Mr Sam Kim (Foreign Attorney, Yoon & Yang LLC), Ms Hyunyang Koo (Associate, Lee & Ko), Ms Seungmin Lee (Partner, Shin & Kim), and Mr Matthew Secomb (Partner, White & Case LLP).

The panellists of the second session shared their experiences in working with complicated arbitration cases, and the lessons that they had learned along the way. Mr Matthew Secomb described how some parties had used joinder and consolidation as tools for tactical advantages, and labelled parties who wanted to keep things simple as “angels”, and parties who sought to complicate matters as “devils”.

Mr Kap-You (Kevin) Kim brought the afternoon to a close, noting that with the number of multiparty international disputes growing in Korea, the timing of the seminar could not have been more opportune.