[A SERIES OF ARBITRATION NOTES] EPISODE 5 | SIAC NEW RULES FOR 2025 | PRIMA FACIE JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTIONS

Foreword

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s (“SIAC”) 7^th Edition Rules, taking effect from January 1, 2025, mark a significant evolution in international arbitration practice. Among the various procedural refinements, Rule 8 on Prima Facie Jurisdictional Objection represents a crucial development in addressing preliminary jurisdictional challenges efficiently while maintaining procedural fairness and tribunal autonomy.

This article examines the comprehensive framework established by Rule 8, analyzing its practical implications, procedural requirements, and strategic considerations for practitioners and parties engaged in SIAC arbitration.

Institutional Framework and VIAC’s Decision-Making Authority

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s Court plays a central role in making jurisdictional determinations and appointing arbitrators, working with an international panel of arbitrators to examine both legal and practical aspects of cases. While SIAC also includes a Board and Secretariat, the Court’s function in handling prima facie jurisdictional decisions under Rule 8 is particularly significant.

SIAC operates through three main bodies: the Board, the Court, and the Secretariat. The Board oversees operations, business strategy, and corporate governance. The Court, which makes prima facie jurisdictional determinations under Rule 8, handles arbitrator appointments and supervises case administration. The Secretariat provides administrative support for proceedings.

The SIAC Court has access to a panel of international arbitrators for its decision-making functions. When considering jurisdictional challenges, the Court examines both legal and practical aspects of the issues presented.

Evolution from Previous Framework

The 2025 SIAC Rules have refined SIAC’s approach to jurisdictional challenges by removing administrative competence objections and focusing on two key scenarios: when a respondent fails to submit a Response, or when any party challenges the arbitration agreement’s existence, validity, or applicability. This streamlining represents a significant change from the 2016 Rules and demonstrates SIAC’s commitment to focusing on fundamental jurisdictional issues.

The prima facie jurisdictional objection mechanism under Rule 8 of the SIAC Rules 2025 is characterized by three fundamental qualities. First, the SIAC Court conducts its jurisdictional deliberations before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, allowing for early resolution of key jurisdictional questions. Second, the Court’s mandate is specifically focused on determining whether SIAC lacks jurisdiction to administer the arbitration, rather than making broader determinations about the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Third, any decision by the Registrar or the SIAC Court permitting the arbitration to proceed explicitly preserves the tribunal’s power to rule on its own jurisdiction, maintaining the principle of competence-competence.

Within this established framework, Rule 8 marks a significant expansion of the Registrar’s powers regarding jurisdictional questions. While previous editions of the SIAC Rules have long established the mechanism for referring jurisdictional objections to the SIAC Court for prima facie determination, the 2025 Rules fundamentally alter the Registrar’s role in two important ways.

First, the Registrar now possesses autonomous power to refer jurisdictional issues to the Court, even without a party’s formal objection. This represents a departure from previous editions where the Registrar’s role was reactive, depending on parties to raise jurisdictional challenges. Second, and equally significant, the Rules now explicitly empower the Registrar to initiate referrals when faced with a respondent’s failure to submit a Response. This new ground for referral enhances SIAC’s ability to address potential jurisdictional issues in cases of non-participating respondents.

These changes reflect a shift from the 2016 Rules’ approach, which focused primarily on party-initiated challenges concerning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement or SIAC’s administrative competence. The 2025 Rules have removed SIAC’s administrative competence as a prescribed ground for jurisdictional objection, while simultaneously strengthening the Registrar’s ability to proactively address jurisdictional concerns. This evolution demonstrates SIAC’s commitment to ensuring jurisdictional integrity in arbitration proceedings, particularly in cases where respondents fail to participate or where potential jurisdictional issues might otherwise go unaddressed.

Key Features of SIAC’s Jurisdictional Framework

SIAC’s Rule 8 framework establishes a comprehensive system for handling jurisdictional challenges, characterized by three fundamental qualities. First, the SIAC Court conducts its jurisdictional review before the constitution of the tribunal, allowing for early resolution of key jurisdictional questions.

Second, the Court’s mandate is specifically focused on determining whether SIAC lacks jurisdiction to administer the arbitration, rather than making broader determinations about the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Third, Rule 8.1 explicitly preserves the tribunal’s power to rule on its own jurisdiction, ensuring that the Court’s prima facie determination does not prejudice the tribunal’s full jurisdictional review.

Procedural Framework and Implementation

The procedural framework under Rule 8 establishes a multi-tiered approach to jurisdictional challenges. At the initial stage, the SIAC Registrar acts as the primary gatekeeper for jurisdiction objections, evaluating whether matters warrant referral to the SIAC Court. This evaluation occurs before the tribunal’s constitution.

When matters are referred to the SIAC Court, it conducts a prima facie determination focused on whether and to what extent the arbitration should proceed. The Court’s mandate under Rule 8 allows for nuanced consideration of jurisdictional issues while maintaining efficiency through the prima facie standard.

Under Rule 8.3, the SIAC Registrar must terminate proceedings if the Court determines the arbitration should not proceed, whether in whole or in part. The framework specifically identifies non-submission of a Response as a trigger for jurisdictional review, creating a structured approach to default scenarios.

SIAC’s framework appears explicitly focused on the existence, validity, and applicability of the arbitration agreement. The SIAC Court makes its determinations without oral hearings, based on documentary evidence, balancing efficiency with procedural fairness.

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

The prima facie jurisdictional objection mechanism under Rule 8 demands careful strategic planning by practitioners at multiple levels. Timing considerations play a crucial role in the effective use of this procedure. Practitioners must assess jurisdictional issues at the earliest possible stage to determine whether to raise objections before the Registrar or reserve them for the tribunal.

The scope and presentation of jurisdictional objections require careful consideration. Practitioners must articulate their jurisdictional arguments with precision while recognizing the prima facie nature of the determination. This requires striking a delicate balance between providing sufficient detail to support the objection and avoiding extensive merits-based arguments better suited for full jurisdictional hearings before the tribunal.

Evidence and argumentation strategies must be tailored to the prima facie nature of the procedure. Practitioners should focus on essential documents and clear jurisdictional issues, recognizing that complex jurisdictional questions involving disputed facts or requiring extensive evidence are likely to be reserved for tribunal determination.

Practical Implications and Best Practices

The implementation of Rule 8 has significant practical implications for case management in SIAC arbitrations. The mechanism for early resolution of jurisdictional issues can substantially streamline proceedings by addressing fundamental jurisdictional questions before the tribunal constitution. This front-loading of jurisdictional determinations provides parties with earlier certainty about the viability of their arbitration, potentially avoiding the cost and time of full proceedings in cases where jurisdiction is clearly lacking.

The cost implications of Rule 8 require careful consideration by parties and their counsel. While the rule necessitates investment in jurisdictional arguments at an early stage, it may ultimately reduce overall costs by preventing unnecessary proceedings or narrowing the scope of jurisdictional arguments before the tribunal.

Perhaps most importantly, Rule 8 underscores the critical importance of careful drafting in arbitration agreements. Parties can minimize risks by paying careful attention to jurisdictional precision in their arbitration agreements, utilizing institutional model clauses, and ensuring clear expression of their intended dispute resolution mechanism. Careful drafting at the contract formation stage can help avoid unnecessary complications and jurisdictional challenges later in the process.

Conclusion

Rule 8 of the SIAC Rules 2025 represents a sophisticated evolution in the handling of preliminary jurisdictional objections. Its success will depend on thoughtful application by practitioners and careful consideration of strategic implications. The rule’s balance between efficiency and procedural fairness, coupled with its preservation of tribunal authority, positions it as a valuable tool in the modern arbitration landscape.

The framework established by Rule 8 reflects SIAC’s commitment to efficient dispute resolution while maintaining the fundamental principles of arbitral justice. As practitioners gain experience with its application, the full potential of this mechanism for enhancing arbitration efficiency while maintaining procedural integrity will become increasingly apparent.

ANHISA LLC AND OUR EXPERTISE

ANHISA LLC is a boutique law firm specializing in Dispute Resolution, Shipping and Aviation. Being the leading lawyers in various fields of law, our qualified, experienced, and supportive team of lawyers know how to best proceed with a case against or in relation to Vietnamese parties and are well equipped to provide clients with cost-effective and innovative solutions to their problems.

Regarding dispute resolution, we have represented Vietnamese and foreign clients in the resolution of disputes involving maritime, construction, commercial and civil matters. Our lawyers are well-equipped to offer services on a wide range of disputes and conflicts, whether cross-border or purely domestic, to appear before any Judges or Arbitral Tribunals. The firm is prepared to assist clients in designing the appropriate dispute resolution procedure to help resolve conflicts as efficiently and cost effectively as possible, which may involve combining elements of mediation and other methods such as arbitration.

AUTHORS

DANG VIET ANH

Managing Partner

Mobile: (+84) 983 467070

Email: anh@anhisa.com

NGUYEN THI TUYET MAI

Senior Associate

Mobile: (+84) 939 117398

Email: mai@anhisa.com

TO VU NHAT MINH

Associate

Mobile:  (+84) 364 260088

Email: minh@anhisa.com

This article aims to furnish our clients and contacts with general information on the relevant topic for reference purposes only, without creating any duty of care on the part of ANHISA. The information presented herein is not intended to serve, nor should it be considered, as a substitute for legal or other professional advice.