Arbitration has become a preferred method for resolving commercial disputes, especially in international business, due to its promise of efficiency, confidentiality, and finality. But what happens when parties disagree not just on the substance of their dispute, but on the very procedures that govern the arbitration and the application of those procedures? Can the courts intervene in such circumstances while the arbitration is still ongoing, or must parties wait until the process has run its course?
These questions were at the heart of a recent decision by the Singapore Court of Appeal (“CA“) in DMZ v DNZ [2025] SGCA 52 (“CA Decision“). The CA Decision revolved around whether the courts could intervene in a procedural decision made by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC“) in an ongoing arbitration. The appellant sought to challenge a revised commencement date determined by the Registrar of SIAC (“Registrar“), arguing that the change in the Registrar’s determination was unlawful and that judicial intervention was warranted to correct it.
The CA, however, reaffirmed a cornerstone of Singapore’s policy and approach to arbitration: the policy of minimal curial (court) intervention. Unless expressly permitted under Singapore’s arbitral legislative framework, the courts should not interfere with the conduct of an arbitration. While this principle is generally established in relation to a tribunal’s decisions, the same extends to the administration of an arbitration by arbitral institutions.
The CA Decision confirms that when parties adopt arbitral rules assigning certain procedural decisions to a specified decision‑maker (e.g. the Registrar) that allocation forms part of their agreement on how the arbitration will be conducted. While the arbitration is on foot, those rule‑based decisions are generally insulated from court intervention. The CA Decision therefore reinforces party autonomy and respect for the parties’ chosen rules, preserving arbitration as a reliable and independent forum for dispute resolution, free from unnecessary judicial interference.
The respondent was successfully represented by Partners Ting Yong Hong and Wu Junneng, together with Associate Alicia Tan, from Rajah & Tann Singapore.
For more information, click here to read the full Legal Update.
Visit Arbitration Asia for insights from our thought leaders across Asia concerning arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, ranging from legal and case law developments to market updates and many more.
Disclaimer
Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of member firms with local legal practices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Our Asian network also includes our regional office in China as well as regional desks focused on Brunei, Japan and South Asia. Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local requirements.
The contents of this publication are owned by Rajah & Tann Asia together with each of its member firms and are subject to all relevant protection (including but not limited to copyright protection) under the laws of each of the countries where the member firm operates and, through international treaties, other countries. No part of this publication may be reproduced, licensed, sold, published, transmitted, modified, adapted, publicly displayed, broadcast (including storage in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently for any purpose save as permitted herein) without the prior written permission of Rajah & Tann Asia or its respective member firms.
Please note also that whilst the information in this publication is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as legal advice or a substitute for specific professional advice for any particular course of action as such information may not suit your specific business and operational requirements. You should seek legal advice for your specific situation. In addition, the information in this publication does not create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise. Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on the information in this publication.
