Our Rules

Main Menu
Menu

SIAC Rules 2016

RULES TRANSLATIONS

Note: English is the official language of the SIAC Rules 2016. In the event of any discrepancy or inconsistency between the English version of these Rules and any other languages in which these Rules are published, the English version shall prevail.

SIAC would like to thank the law firms below for translating the SIAC Rules 2016 into the following languages:

Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC Rules 6th Edition, 1 August 2016

PDF Format
WORD Format
1.1Where the parties have agreed to refer their disputes to SIAC for arbitration or to arbitration in accordance with the SIAC Rules, the parties shall be deemed to have agreed that the arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to and administered by SIAC in accordance with these Rules.
1.2These Rules shall come into force on 1 August 2016 and, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, shall apply to any arbitration which is commenced on or after that date.
1.3In these Rules:

“Award” includes a partial, interim or final award and an award of an Emergency Arbitrator;

“Committee of the Court” means a committee consisting of not less than two members of the Court appointed by the President (which may include the President);

“Court” means the Court of Arbitration of SIAC and includes a Committee of the Court;

“Emergency Arbitrator” means an arbitrator appointed in accordance with paragraph 3 of Schedule 1;

“Practice Notes” mean the guidelines published by the Registrar from time to time to supplement, regulate and implement these Rules;

“President” means the President of the Court and includes any Vice President and the Registrar;

“Registrar” means the Registrar of the Court and includes any Deputy Registrar;

“Rules” means the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (6th Edition, 1 August 2016);

“SIAC” means the Singapore International Arbitration Centre; and

“Tribunal” includes a sole arbitrator or all the arbitrators where more than one arbitrator is appointed.

Any pronoun in these Rules shall be understood to be gender-neutral. Any singular noun shall be understood to refer to the plural in the appropriate circumstances.
2.1 For the purposes of these Rules, any notice, communication or proposal shall be in writing. Any such notice, communication or proposal may be delivered by hand, registered post or courier service, or transmitted by any form of electronic communication (including electronic mail and facsimile), or delivered by any other appropriate means that provides a record of its delivery. Any notice, communication or proposal shall be deemed to have been received if it is delivered: (i) to the addressee personally or to its authorised representative; (ii) to the addressee’s habitual residence, place of business or designated address; (iii) to any address agreed by the parties; (iv) according to the practice of the parties in prior dealings; or (v) if, after reasonable efforts, none of these can be found, then at the addressee’s last-known residence or place of business.
2.2 Any notice, communication or proposal shall be deemed to have been received on the day it is delivered in accordance with Rule 2.1.
2.3 For the purpose of calculating any period of time under these Rules, such period shall begin to run on the day following the day when a notice, communication or proposal is deemed to have been received. Unless the Registrar or the Tribunal determines otherwise, any period of time under these Rules is to be calculated in accordance with Singapore Standard Time (GMT +8).
2.4 Any non-business days at the place of receipt shall be included in calculating any period of time under these Rules. If the last day of any period of time under these Rules is not a business day at the place of receipt in accordance with Rule 2.1, the period is extended until the first business day which follows.
2.5 The parties shall file with the Registrar a copy of any notice, communication or proposal concerning the arbitral proceedings.
2.6 Except as provided in these Rules, the Registrar may at any time extend or abbreviate any time limits prescribed under these Rules.
3.1 A party wishing to commence an arbitration under these Rules (the “Claimant”) shall file with the Registrar a Notice of Arbitration which shall include:
a. a demand that the dispute be referred to arbitration;
b. the names, addresses, telephone numbers, facsimile numbers and electronic mail addresses, if known, of the parties to the arbitration and their representatives, if any;
c. a reference to the arbitration agreement invoked and a copy of the arbitration agreement;
d. a reference to the contract or other instrument (e.g. investment treaty) out of or in relation to which the dispute arises and, where possible, a copy of the contract or other instrument;
e. a brief statement describing the nature and circumstances of the dispute, specifying the relief claimed and, where possible, an initial quantification of the claim amount;
f. a statement of any matters which the parties have previously agreed as to the conduct of the arbitration or with respect to which the Claimant wishes to make a proposal;
g. a proposal for the number of arbitrators if not specified in the arbitration agreement;
h. unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the nomination of an arbitrator if the arbitration agreement provides for three arbitrators, or a proposal for a sole arbitrator if the arbitration agreement provides for a sole arbitrator;
i. any comment as to the applicable rules of law;
j. any comment as to the language of the arbitration; and
k. payment of the requisite filing fee under these Rules.
3.2 The Notice of Arbitration may also include the Statement of Claim referred to in Rule 20.2.
3.3 The date of receipt of the complete Notice of Arbitration by the Registrar shall be deemed to be the date of commencement of the arbitration. For the avoidance of doubt, the Notice of Arbitration is deemed to be complete when all the requirements of Rule 3.1 and Rule 6.1(b) (if applicable) are fulfilled or when the Registrar determines that there has been substantial compliance with such requirements. SIAC shall notify the parties of the commencement of the arbitration.
3.4 The Claimant shall, at the same time as it files the Notice of Arbitration with the Registrar, send a copy of the Notice of Arbitration to the Respondent, and shall notify the Registrar that it has done so, specifying the mode of service employed and the date of service.
4.1 The Respondent shall file a Response with the Registrar within 14 days of receipt of the Notice of Arbitration. The Response shall include:
a. a confirmation or denial of all or part of the claims, including, where possible, any plea that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction;
b. a brief statement describing the nature and circumstances of any counterclaim, specifying the relief claimed and, where possible, an initial quantification of the counterclaim amount;
c. any comment in response to any statements contained in the Notice of Arbitration under Rule 3.1 or any comment with respect to the matters covered in such Rule;
d. unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the nomination of an arbitrator if the arbitration agreement provides for three arbitrators or, if the arbitration agreement provides for a sole arbitrator, comments on the Claimant’s proposal for a sole arbitrator or a counter-proposal; and
e. payment of the requisite filing fee under these Rules for any counterclaim.
4.2 The Response may also include the Statement of Defence and a Statement of Counterclaim, as referred to in Rule 20.3 and Rule 20.4.
4.3 The Respondent shall, at the same time as it files the Response with the Registrar, send a copy of the Response to the Claimant, and shall notify the Registrar that it has done so, specifying the mode of service employed and the date of service.
5.1

Prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, a party may file an application with the Registrar for the arbitral proceedings to be conducted in accordance with the Expedited Procedure under this Rule, provided that any of the following criteria is satisfied:

a.the amount in dispute does not exceed the equivalent amount of S$6,000,000, representing the aggregate of the claim, counterclaim and any defence of set-off;
b.the parties so agree; or
c.in cases of exceptional urgency.
 The party applying for the arbitral proceedings to be conducted in accordance with the Expedited Procedure under this Rule 5.1 shall, at the same time as it files an application for the proceedings to be conducted in accordance with the Expedited Procedure with the Registrar, send a copy of the application to the other party and shall notify the Registrar that it has done so, specifying the mode of service employed and the date of service.
5.2Where a party has filed an application with the Registrar under Rule 5.1, and where the President determines, after considering the views of the parties, and having regard to the circumstances of the case, that the arbitral proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Expedited Procedure, the following procedure shall apply:
 
a.the Registrar may abbreviate any time limits under these Rules;
b.the case shall be referred to a sole arbitrator, unless the President determines otherwise;
c.the Tribunal may, in consultation with the parties, decide if the dispute is to be decided on the basis of documentary evidence only, or if a hearing is required for the examination of any witness and expert witness as well as for any oral argument;
d.the final Award shall be made within six months from the date when the Tribunal is constituted unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Registrar extends the time for making such final Award; and
e.the Tribunal may state the reasons upon which the final Award is based in summary form, unless the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given.
5.3By agreeing to arbitration under these Rules, the parties agree that, where arbitral proceedings are conducted in accordance with the Expedited Procedure under this Rule 5, the rules and procedures set forth in Rule 5.2 shall apply even in cases where the arbitration agreement contains contrary terms.
5.4Upon application by a party, and after giving the parties the opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal may, having regard to any further information as may subsequently become available, and in consultation with the Registrar, order that the arbitral proceedings shall no longer be conducted in accordance with the Expedited Procedure. Where the Tribunal decides to grant an application under this Rule 5.4, the arbitration shall continue to be conducted by the same Tribunal that was constituted to conduct the arbitration in accordance with the Expedited Procedure.
6.1Where there are disputes arising out of or in connection with more than one contract, the Claimant may:
a.file a Notice of Arbitration in respect of each arbitration agreement invoked and concurrently submit an application to consolidate the arbitrations pursuant to Rule 8.1; or
b.file a single Notice of Arbitration in respect of all the arbitration agreements invoked which shall include a statement identifying each contract and arbitration agreement invoked and a description of how the applicable criteria under Rule 8.1 are satisfied. The Claimant shall be deemed to have commenced multiple arbitrations, one in respect of each arbitration agreement invoked, and the Notice of Arbitration under this Rule 6.1(b) shall be deemed to be an application to consolidate all such arbitrations pursuant to Rule 8.1.
6.2Where the Claimant has filed two or more Notices of Arbitration pursuant to Rule 6.1(a), the Registrar shall accept payment of a single filing fee under these Rules for all the arbitrations sought to be consolidated. Where the Court rejects the application for consolidation, in whole or in part, the Claimant shall be required to make payment of the requisite filing fee under these Rules in respect of each arbitration that has not been consolidated.
6.3Where the Claimant has filed a single Notice of Arbitration pursuant to Rule 6.1(b) and the Court rejects the application for consolidation, in whole or in part, it shall file a Notice of Arbitration in respect of each arbitration that has not been consolidated, and the Claimant shall be required to make payment of the requisite filing fee under these Rules in respect of each arbitration that has not been consolidated.
7.1Prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, a party or non-party to the arbitration may file an application with the Registrar for one or more additional parties to be joined in an arbitration pending under these Rules as a Claimant or a Respondent, provided that any of the following criteria is satisfied:
 
a.the additional party to be joined is prima facie bound by the arbitration agreement; or
b.all parties, including the additional party to be joined, have consented to the joinder of the additional party.
7.2An application for joinder under Rule 7.1 shall include:
 
a.the case reference number of the pending arbitration;
b.the names, addresses, telephone numbers, facsimile numbers and electronic mail addresses, if known, of all parties, including the additional party to be joined, and their representatives, if any, and any arbitrators who have been nominated or appointed in the pending arbitration;
c.whether the additional party is to be joined as a Claimant or a Respondent;
d.the information specified in Rule 3.1(c) and Rule 3.1(d);
e.if the application is being made under Rule 7.1(b), identification of the relevant agreement and, where possible, a copy of such agreement; and
f.a brief statement of the facts and legal basis supporting the application.
 The application for joinder is deemed to be complete when all the requirements of this Rule 7.2 are fulfilled or when the Registrar determines that there has been substantial compliance with such requirements. SIAC shall notify all parties, including the additional party to be joined, when the application for joinder is complete.
7.3The party or non-party applying for joinder under Rule 7.1 shall, at the same time as it files an application for joinder with the Registrar, send a copy of the application to all parties, including the additional party to be joined, and shall notify the Registrar that it has done so, specifying the mode of service employed and the date of service.
7.4The Court shall, after considering the views of all parties, including the additional party to be joined, and having regard to the circumstances of the case, decide whether to grant, in whole or in part, any application for joinder under Rule 7.1. The Court’s decision to grant an application for joinder under this Rule 7.4 is without prejudice to the Tribunal’s power to subsequently decide any question as to its jurisdiction arising from such decision. The Court’s decision to reject an application for joinder under this Rule 7.4, in whole or in part, is without prejudice to any party’s or non-party’s right to apply to the Tribunal for joinder pursuant to Rule 7.8.
7.5Where an application for joinder is granted under Rule 7.4, the date of receipt of the complete application for joinder shall be deemed to be the date of commencement of the arbitration in respect of the additional party.
7.6Where an application for joinder is granted under Rule 7.4, the Court may revoke the appointment of any arbitrators appointed prior to the decision on joinder. Unless otherwise agreed by all parties, including the additional party joined, Rule 9 to Rule 12 shall apply as appropriate, and the respective timelines thereunder shall run from the date of receipt of the Court’s decision under Rule 7.4.
7.7The Court’s decision to revoke the appointment of any arbitrator under Rule 7.6 is without prejudice to the validity of any act done or order or Award made by the arbitrator before his appointment was revoked.
7.8After the constitution of the Tribunal, a party or non-party to the arbitration may apply to the Tribunal for one or more additional parties to be joined in an arbitration pending under these Rules as a Claimant or a Respondent, provided that any of the following criteria is satisfied:
 
a.the additional party to be joined is prima facie bound by the arbitration agreement; or
b.all parties, including the additional party to be joined, have consented to the joinder of the additional party.
 Where appropriate, an application to the Tribunal under this Rule 7.8 may be filed with the Registrar.
7.9Subject to any specific directions of the Tribunal, the provisions of Rule 7.2 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to an application for joinder under Rule 7.8.
7.10The Tribunal shall, after giving all parties, including the additional party to be joined, the opportunity to be heard, and having regard to the circumstances of the case, decide whether to grant, in whole or in part, any application for joinder under Rule 7.8. The Tribunal’s decision to grant an application for joinder under this Rule 7.10 is without prejudice to its power to subsequently decide any question as to its jurisdiction arising from such decision.
7.11Where an application for joinder is granted under Rule 7.10, the date of receipt by the Tribunal or the Registrar, as the case may be, of the complete application for joinder shall be deemed to be the date of commencement of the arbitration in respect of the additional party.
7.12Where an application for joinder is granted under Rule 7.4 or Rule 7.10, any party who has not nominated an arbitrator or otherwise participated in the constitution of the Tribunal shall be deemed to have waived its right to nominate an arbitrator or otherwise participate in the constitution of the Tribunal, without prejudice to the right of such party to challenge an arbitrator pursuant to Rule 14.
7.13Where an application for joinder is granted under Rule 7.4 or Rule 7.10, the requisite filing fee under these Rules shall be payable for any additional claims or counterclaims.
8.1Prior to the constitution of any Tribunal in the arbitrations sought to be consolidated, a party may file an application with the Registrar to consolidate two or more arbitrations pending under these Rules into a single arbitration, provided that any of the following criteria is satisfied in respect of the arbitrations to be consolidated:
 
a.all parties have agreed to the consolidation;
b.all the claims in the arbitrations are made under the same arbitration agreement; or
c.the arbitration agreements are compatible, and: (i) the disputes arise out of the same legal relationship(s); (ii) the disputes arise out of contracts consisting of a principal contract and its ancillary contract(s); or (iii) the disputes arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions.
8.2An application for consolidation under Rule 8.1 shall include:
 
a.the case reference numbers of the arbitrations sought to be consolidated;
b.the names, addresses, telephone numbers, facsimile numbers and electronic mail addresses, if known, of all parties and their representatives, if any, and any arbitrators who have been nominated or appointed in the arbitrations sought to be consolidated;
c.the information specified in Rule 3.1(c) and Rule 3.1(d);
d.if the application is being made under Rule 8.1(a), identification of the relevant agreement and, where possible, a copy of such agreement; and
e.a brief statement of the facts and legal basis supporting the application.
8.3The party applying for consolidation under Rule 8.1 shall, at the same time as it files an application for consolidation with the Registrar, send a copy of the application to all parties and shall notify the Registrar that it has done so, specifying the mode of service employed and the date of service.
8.4The Court shall, after considering the views of all parties, and having regard to the circumstances of the case, decide whether to grant, in whole or in part, any application for consolidation under Rule 8.1. The Court’s decision to grant an application for consolidation under this Rule 8.4 is without prejudice to the Tribunal’s power to subsequently decide any question as to its jurisdiction arising from such decision. The Court’s decision to reject an application for consolidation under this Rule 8.4, in whole or in part, is without prejudice to any party’s right to apply to the Tribunal for consolidation pursuant to Rule 8.7. Any arbitrations that are not consolidated shall continue as separate arbitrations under these Rules.
8.5Where the Court decides to consolidate two or more arbitrations under Rule 8.4, the arbitrations shall be consolidated into the arbitration that is deemed by the Registrar to have commenced first, unless otherwise agreed by all parties or the Court decides otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case.
8.6Where an application for consolidation is granted under Rule 8.4, the Court may revoke the appointment of any arbitrators appointed prior to the decision on consolidation. Unless otherwise agreed by all parties, Rule 9 to Rule 12 shall apply as appropriate, and the respective timelines thereunder shall run from the date of receipt of the Court’s decision under Rule 8.4.
8.7After the constitution of any Tribunal in the arbitrations sought to be consolidated, a party may apply to the Tribunal to consolidate two or more arbitrations pending under these Rules into a single arbitration, provided that any of the following criteria is satisfied in respect of the arbitrations to be consolidated:
 
a.all parties have agreed to the consolidation;
b.all the claims in the arbitrations are made under the same arbitration agreement, and the same Tribunal has been constituted in each of the arbitrations or no Tribunal has been constituted in the other arbitration(s); or
c.the arbitration agreements are compatible, the same Tribunal has been constituted in each of the arbitrations or no Tribunal has been constituted in the other arbitration(s), and: (i) the disputes arise out of the same legal relationship(s); (ii) the disputes arise out of contracts consisting of a principal contract and its ancillary contract(s); or (iii) the disputes arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions.
8.8Subject to any specific directions of the Tribunal, the provisions of Rule 8.2 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to an application for consolidation under Rule 8.7.
8.9The Tribunal shall, after giving all parties the opportunity to be heard, and having regard to the circumstances of the case, decide whether to grant, in whole or in part, any application for consolidation under Rule 8.7. The Tribunal’s decision to grant an application for consolidation under this Rule 8.9 is without prejudice to its power to subsequently decide any question as to its jurisdiction arising from such decision. Any arbitrations that are not consolidated shall continue as separate arbitrations under these Rules.
8.10Where an application for consolidation is granted under Rule 8.9, the Court may revoke the appointment of any arbitrators appointed prior to the decision on consolidation.
  
8.11The Court’s decision to revoke the appointment of any arbitrator under Rule 8.6 or Rule 8.10 is without prejudice to the validity of any act done or order or Award made by the arbitrator before his appointment was revoked.
8.12Where an application for consolidation is granted under Rule 8.4 or Rule 8.9, any party who has not nominated an arbitrator or otherwise participated in the constitution of the Tribunal shall be deemed to have waived its right to nominate an arbitrator or otherwise participate in the constitution of the Tribunal, without prejudice to the right of such party to challenge an arbitrator pursuant to Rule 14.
9.1A sole arbitrator shall be appointed in any arbitration under these Rules unless the parties have otherwise agreed; or it appears to the Registrar, giving due regard to any proposals by the parties, that the complexity, the quantum involved or other relevant circumstances of the dispute, warrants the appointment of three arbitrators.
9.2If the parties have agreed that any arbitrator is to be appointed by one or more of the parties, or by any third person including by the arbitrators already appointed, that agreement shall be deemed an agreement to nominate an arbitrator under these Rules.
9.3In all cases, the arbitrators nominated by the parties, or by any third person including by the arbitrators already appointed, shall be subject to appointment by the President in his discretion.
9.4The President shall appoint an arbitrator as soon as practicable. Any decision by the President to appoint an arbitrator under these Rules shall be final and not subject to appeal.
9.5The President may appoint any nominee whose appointment has already been suggested or proposed by any party.
9.6The terms of appointment of each arbitrator shall be fixed by the Registrar in accordance with these Rules and any Practice Notes for the time being in force, or in accordance with the agreement of the parties.
10.1If a sole arbitrator is to be appointed, either party may propose to the other party the names of one or more persons to serve as the sole arbitrator. Where the parties have reached an agreement on the nomination of a sole arbitrator, Rule 9.3 shall apply.
10.2If within 21 days after the date of commencement of the arbitration, or within the period otherwise agreed by the parties or set by the Registrar, the parties have not reached an agreement on the nomination of a sole arbitrator, or if at any time either party so requests, the President shall appoint the sole arbitrator.
11.1If three arbitrators are to be appointed, each party shall nominate one arbitrator.
11.2If a party fails to make a nomination of an arbitrator within 14 days after receipt of a party’s nomination of an arbitrator, or within the period otherwise agreed by the parties or set by the Registrar, the President shall proceed to appoint an arbitrator on its behalf.
11.3Unless the parties have agreed upon another procedure for appointing the third arbitrator, or if such agreed procedure does not result in a nomination within the period agreed by the parties or set by the Registrar, the President shall appoint the third arbitrator, who shall be the presiding arbitrator.
12.1Where there are more than two parties to the arbitration, and a sole arbitrator is to be appointed, the parties may agree to jointly nominate the sole arbitrator. In the absence of such joint nomination having been made within 28 days of the date of commencement of the arbitration or within the period otherwise agreed by the parties or set by the Registrar, the President shall appoint the sole arbitrator.
12.2Where there are more than two parties to the arbitration, and three arbitrators are to be appointed, the Claimant(s) shall jointly nominate one arbitrator and the Respondent(s) shall jointly nominate one arbitrator. The third arbitrator, who shall be the presiding arbitrator, shall be appointed in accordance with Rule 11.3. In the absence of both such joint nominations having been made within 28 days of the date of commencement of the arbitration or within the period otherwise agreed by the parties or set by the Registrar, the President shall appoint all three arbitrators and shall designate one of them to be the presiding arbitrator.
13.1Any arbitrator appointed in an arbitration under these Rules, whether or not nominated by the parties, shall be and remain at all times independent and impartial.
13.2In appointing an arbitrator under these Rules, the President shall have due regard to any qualifications required of the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties and to such considerations that are relevant to the impartiality or independence of the arbitrator.
13.3The President shall also consider whether the arbitrator has sufficient availability to determine the case in a prompt and efficient manner that is appropriate given the nature of the arbitration.
13.4A nominated arbitrator shall disclose to the parties and to the Registrar any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence as soon as reasonably practicable and in any event before his appointment.
13.5An arbitrator shall immediately disclose to the parties, to the other arbitrators and to the Registrar any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence that may be discovered or arise during the arbitration.
13.6No party or person acting on behalf of a party shall have any ex parte communication relating to the case with any arbitrator or with any candidate for appointment as party-nominated arbitrator, except to advise the candidate of the general nature of the controversy and of the anticipated proceedings; to discuss the candidate’s qualifications, availability or independence in relation to the parties; or to discuss the suitability of candidates for selection as the presiding arbitrator where the parties or party-nominated arbitrators are to participate in that selection. No party or person acting on behalf of a party shall have any ex parte communication relating to the case with any candidate for presiding arbitrator.
14.1Any arbitrator may be challenged if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence or if the arbitrator does not possess any requisite qualification on which the parties have agreed.
14.2A party may challenge the arbitrator nominated by it only for reasons of which it becomes aware after the appointment has been made.
15.1A party that intends to challenge an arbitrator shall file a notice of challenge with the Registrar in accordance with the requirements of Rule 15.2 within 14 days after receipt of the notice of appointment of the arbitrator who is being challenged or within 14 days after the circumstances specified in Rule 14.1 or Rule 14.2 became known or should have reasonably been known to that party.
15.2The notice of challenge shall state the reasons for the challenge. The date of receipt of the notice of challenge by the Registrar shall be deemed to be the date the notice of challenge is filed. The party challenging an arbitrator shall, at the same time as it files a notice of challenge with the Registrar, send the notice of challenge to the other party, the arbitrator who is being challenged and the other members of the Tribunal (or if the Tribunal has not yet been constituted, any appointed arbitrator), and shall notify the Registrar that it has done so, specifying the mode of service employed and the date of service.
15.3The party making the challenge shall pay the requisite challenge fee under these Rules in accordance with the applicable Schedule of Fees. If the party making the challenge fails to pay the challenge fee within the time limit set by the Registrar, the challenge shall be considered as withdrawn.
15.4After receipt of a notice of challenge under Rule 15.2, the Registrar may order a suspension of the arbitral proceedings until the challenge is resolved. Unless the Registrar orders the suspension of the arbitral proceedings pursuant to this Rule 15.4, the challenged arbitrator shall be entitled to continue to participate in the arbitration pending the determination of the challenge by the Court in accordance with Rule 16.
15.5Where an arbitrator is challenged by a party, the other party may agree to the challenge, and the Court shall remove the arbitrator if all parties agree to the challenge. The challenged arbitrator may also voluntarily withdraw from office. In neither case does this imply acceptance of the validity of the grounds for the challenge.
15.6If an arbitrator is removed or withdraws from office in accordance with Rule 15.5, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the procedure applicable to the nomination and appointment of the arbitrator being replaced. This procedure shall apply even if, during the process of appointing the challenged arbitrator, a party failed to exercise its right to nominate an arbitrator. The time limits applicable to the nomination and appointment of the substitute arbitrator shall commence from the date of receipt of the agreement of the other party to the challenge or the challenged arbitrator’s withdrawal from office.
16.1If, within seven days of receipt of the notice of challenge under Rule 15, the other party does not agree to the challenge and the arbitrator who is being challenged does not withdraw voluntarily from office, the Court shall decide the challenge. The Court may request comments on the challenge from the parties, the challenged arbitrator and the other members of the Tribunal (or if the Tribunal has not yet been constituted, any appointed arbitrator), and set a schedule for such comments to be made.
16.2If the Court accepts the challenge to an arbitrator, the Court shall remove the arbitrator, and a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the procedure applicable to the nomination and appointment of the arbitrator being replaced. The time limits applicable to the nomination and appointment of the substitute arbitrator shall commence from the date of the Registrar’s notification to the parties of the decision by the Court.
16.3If the Court rejects the challenge to an arbitrator, the challenged arbitrator shall continue with the arbitration.
16.4The Court’s decision on any challenge to an arbitrator under this Rule 16 shall be reasoned, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, and shall be issued to the parties by the Registrar. Any such decision on any challenge by the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal.
17.1Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, in the event of the death, resignation, withdrawal or removal of an arbitrator during the course of the arbitral proceedings, a substitute arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the procedure applicable to the nomination and appointment of the arbitrator being replaced.
17.2In the event that an arbitrator refuses or fails to act or perform his functions in accordance with the Rules or within prescribed time limits, or in the event of any de jure or de facto impossibility by an arbitrator to act or perform his functions, the procedure for challenge and replacement of an arbitrator provided in Rule 14 to Rule 16 and Rule 17.1 shall apply.
17.3The President may, at his own initiative and in his discretion, remove an arbitrator who refuses or fails to act or to perform his functions in accordance with the Rules or within prescribed time limits, or in the event of a de jure or de facto impossibility of an arbitrator to act or perform his functions, or if the arbitrator does not conduct or participate in the arbitration with due diligence and/or in a manner that ensures the fair, expeditious, economical and final resolution of the dispute. The President shall consult the parties and the members of the Tribunal, including the arbitrator to be removed (or if the Tribunal has not yet been constituted, any appointed arbitrator) prior to the removal of an arbitrator under this Rule.
If the sole or presiding arbitrator is replaced in accordance with the procedure in Rule 15 to Rule 17, any hearings held previously shall be repeated unless otherwise agreed by the parties. If any other arbitrator is replaced, any hearings held previously may be repeated at the discretion of the Tribunal after consulting with the parties. If the Tribunal has issued an interim or partial Award, any hearings relating solely to that Award shall not be repeated, and the Award shall remain in effect.
19.1The Tribunal shall conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate, after consulting with the parties, to ensure the fair, expeditious, economical and final resolution of the dispute.
19.2The Tribunal shall determine the relevance, materiality and admissibility of all evidence. The Tribunal is not required to apply the rules of evidence of any applicable law in making such determination.
19.3As soon as practicable after the constitution of the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall conduct a preliminary meeting with the parties, in person or by any other means, to discuss the procedures that will be most appropriate and efficient for the case.
19.4The Tribunal may, in its discretion, direct the order of proceedings, bifurcate proceedings, exclude cumulative or irrelevant testimony or other evidence and direct the parties to focus their presentations on issues the decision of which could dispose of all or part of the case.
19.5Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the presiding arbitrator may make procedural rulings alone, subject to revision by the Tribunal.
19.6All statements, documents or other information supplied to the Tribunal and/or the Registrar by a party shall simultaneously be communicated to the other party.
19.7The President may, at any stage of the proceedings, request the parties and the Tribunal to convene a meeting to discuss the procedures that will be most appropriate and efficient for the case. Such meeting may be conducted in person or by any other means.
20.1Unless the Tribunal determines otherwise, the submission of written statements shall proceed as set out in this Rule.
20.2Unless already submitted pursuant to Rule 3.2, the Claimant shall, within a period of time to be determined by the Tribunal, send to the Respondent and the Tribunal a Statement of Claim setting out in full detail:
 
a.a statement of facts supporting the claim;
b.the legal grounds or arguments supporting the claim; and
c.the relief claimed together with the amount of all quantifiable claims.
20.3Unless already submitted pursuant to Rule 4.2, the Respondent shall, within a period of time to be determined by the Tribunal, send to the Claimant and the Tribunal a Statement of Defence setting out in full detail:
 
a.a statement of facts supporting its defence to the Statement of Claim;
b.the legal grounds or arguments supporting such defence; and
c.the relief claimed.
20.4If a Statement of Counterclaim is made, the Claimant shall, within a period of time to be determined by the Tribunal, send to the Respondent and the Tribunal a Statement of Defence to Counterclaim setting out in full detail:
 
a.a statement of facts supporting its defence to the Statement of Counterclaim;
b.the legal grounds or arguments supporting such defence; and
c.the relief claimed.
20.5A party may amend its claim, counterclaim or other submissions unless the Tribunal considers it inappropriate to allow such amendment having regard to the delay in making it or prejudice to the other party or any other circumstances. However, a claim or counterclaim may not be amended in such a manner that the amended claim or counterclaim falls outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.
20.6The Tribunal shall decide which further submissions shall be required from the parties or may be presented by them. The Tribunal shall fix the periods of time for communicating such submissions.
20.7All submissions referred to in this Rule shall be accompanied by copies of all supporting documents which have not previously been submitted by any party.
20.8If the Claimant fails within the time specified to submit its Statement of Claim, the Tribunal may issue an order for the termination of the arbitral proceedings or give such other directions as may be appropriate.
20.9If the Respondent fails to submit its Statement of Defence, or if at any point any party fails to avail itself of the opportunity to present its case in the manner directed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal may proceed with the arbitration.
21.1The parties may agree on the seat of the arbitration. Failing such an agreement, the seat of the arbitration shall be determined by the Tribunal, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
21.2The Tribunal may hold hearings and meetings by any means it considers expedient or appropriate and at any location it considers convenient or appropriate.
22.1 Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the Tribunal shall determine the language to be used in the arbitration.
22.2 If a party submits a document written in a language other than the language(s) of the arbitration, the Tribunal, or if the Tribunal has not been constituted, the Registrar, may order that party to submit a translation in a form to be determined by the Tribunal or the Registrar.
23.1Any party may be represented by legal practitioners or any other authorised representatives. The Registrar and/or the Tribunal may require proof of authority of any party representatives.
23.2After the constitution of the Tribunal, any change or addition by a party to its representatives shall be promptly communicated in writing to the parties, the Tribunal and the Registrar.
24.1 Unless the parties have agreed on a documents-only arbitration or as otherwise provided in these Rules, the Tribunal shall, if either party so requests or the Tribunal so decides, hold a hearing for the presentation of evidence and/or for oral submissions on the merits of the dispute, including any issue as to jurisdiction.
24.2 The Tribunal shall, after consultation with the parties, set the date, time and place of any meeting or hearing and shall give the parties reasonable notice.
24.3 If any party fails to appear at a meeting or hearing without showing sufficient cause for such failure, the Tribunal may proceed with the arbitration and may make the Award based on the submissions and evidence before it.
24.4 Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, all meetings and hearings shall be in private, and any recordings, transcripts, or documents used in relation to the arbitral proceedings shall remain confidential.
25.1 Before any hearing, the Tribunal may require the parties to give notice of the identity of witnesses, including expert witnesses, whom the parties intend to produce, the subject matter of their testimony and its relevance to the issues.
25.2 The Tribunal may allow, refuse or limit the appearance of witnesses to give oral evidence at any hearing.
25.3 Any witness who gives oral evidence may be questioned by each of the parties, their representatives and the Tribunal in such manner as the Tribunal may determine.
25.4 The Tribunal may direct the testimony of witnesses to be presented in written form, either as signed statements or sworn affidavits or any other form of recording. Subject to Rule 25.2, any party may request that such a witness should attend for oral examination. If the witness fails to attend for oral examination, the Tribunal may place such weight on the written testimony as it thinks fit, disregard such written testimony, or exclude such written testimony altogether.
25.5 It shall be permissible for any party or its representatives to interview any witness or potential witness (that may be presented by that party) prior to his appearance to give oral evidence at any hearing.
26.1Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the Tribunal may:
 
a.following consultation with the parties, appoint an expert to report on specific issues; and
b.require a party to give any expert appointed under Rule 26.1(a) any relevant information, or to produce or provide access to any relevant documents, goods or property for inspection.
26.2Any expert appointed under Rule 26.1(a) shall submit a report in writing to the Tribunal. Upon receipt of such written report, the Tribunal shall deliver a copy of the report to the parties and invite the parties to submit written comments on the report.
26.3Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, if the Tribunal considers it necessary or at the request of any party, an expert appointed under Rule 26.1(a) shall, after delivery of his written report, participate in a hearing. At the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to examine such expert.
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, in addition to the other powers specified in these Rules, and except as prohibited by the mandatory rules of law applicable to the arbitration, the Tribunal shall have the power to:
a.order the correction or rectification of any contract, subject to the law governing such contract;
b.except as provided in these Rules, extend or abbreviate any time limits prescribed under these Rules or by its directions;
c.conduct such enquiries as may appear to the Tribunal to be necessary or expedient;
d.order the parties to make any property or item in their possession or control available for inspection;
e.order the preservation, storage, sale or disposal of any property or item which is or forms part of the subject matter of the dispute;
f.order any party to produce to the Tribunal and to the other parties for inspection, and to supply copies of, any document in their possession or control which the Tribunal considers relevant to the case and material to its outcome;
g.issue an order or Award for the reimbursement of unpaid deposits towards the costs of the arbitration;
h.direct any party or person to give evidence by affidavit or in any other form;
i.direct any party to take or refrain from taking actions to ensure that any Award which may be made in the arbitration is not rendered ineffectual by the dissipation of assets by a party or otherwise;
j.order any party to provide security for legal or other costs in any manner the Tribunal thinks fit;
k.order any party to provide security for all or part of any amount in dispute in the arbitration;
l.proceed with the arbitration notwithstanding the failure or refusal of any party to comply with these Rules or with the Tribunal's orders or directions or any partial Award or to attend any meeting or hearing, and to impose such sanctions as the Tribunal deems appropriate in relation to such failure or refusal;
m.decide, where appropriate, any issue not expressly or impliedly raised in the submissions of a party provided such issue has been clearly brought to the notice of the other party and that other party has been given adequate opportunity to respond;
n.determine the law applicable to the arbitral proceedings; and
o.determine any claim of legal or other privilege.
28.1If any party objects to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement or to the competence of SIAC to administer an arbitration, before the Tribunal is constituted, the Registrar shall determine if such objection shall be referred to the Court. If the Registrar so determines, the Court shall decide if it is prima facie satisfied that the arbitration shall proceed. The arbitration shall be terminated if the Court is not so satisfied. Any decision by the Registrar or the Court that the arbitration shall proceed is without prejudice to the power of the Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.
28.2The Tribunal shall have the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, validity or scope of the arbitration agreement. An arbitration agreement which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract. A decision by the Tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration agreement, and the Tribunal shall not cease to have jurisdiction by reason of any allegation that the contract is non-existent or null and void.
28.3Any objection that the Tribunal:
 
a.does not have jurisdiction shall be raised no later than in a Statement of Defence or in a Statement of Defence to a Counterclaim; or
b.is exceeding the scope of its jurisdiction shall be raised within 14 days after the matter alleged to be beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction arises during the arbitral proceedings.
 The Tribunal may admit an objection raised by a party outside the time limits under this Rule 28.3 if it considers the delay justified. A party is not precluded from raising an objection under this Rule 28.3 by the fact that it has nominated, or participated in the nomination of, an arbitrator.
28.4The Tribunal may rule on an objection referred to in Rule 28.3 either as a preliminary question or in an Award on the merits.
28.5A party may rely on a claim or defence for the purpose of a set-off to the extent permitted by these Rules and the applicable law.
29.1A party may apply to the Tribunal for the early dismissal of a claim or defence on the basis that:
 
a.a claim or defence is manifestly without legal merit; or
b.a claim or defence is manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
29.2An application for the early dismissal of a claim or defence under Rule 29.1 shall state in detail the facts and legal basis supporting the application. The party applying for early dismissal shall, at the same time as it files the application with the Tribunal, send a copy of the application to the other party, and shall notify the Tribunal that it has done so, specifying the mode of service employed and the date of service.
29.3The Tribunal may, in its discretion, allow the application for the early dismissal of a claim or defence under Rule 29.1 to proceed. If the application is allowed to proceed, the Tribunal shall, after giving the parties the opportunity to be heard, decide whether to grant, in whole or in part, the application for early dismissal under Rule 29.1.
29.4If the application is allowed to proceed, the Tribunal shall make an order or Award on the application, with reasons, which may be in summary form. The order or Award shall be made within 60 days of the date of filing of the application, unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Registrar extends the time.
30.1 The Tribunal may, at the request of a party, issue an order or an Award granting an injunction or any other interim relief it deems appropriate. The Tribunal may order the party requesting interim relief to provide appropriate security in connection with the relief sought.
30.2 A party that wishes to seek emergency interim relief prior to the constitution of the Tribunal may apply for such relief pursuant to the procedures set forth in Schedule 1.
30.3 A request for interim relief made by a party to a judicial authority prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, or in exceptional circumstances thereafter, is not incompatible with these Rules.
31.1 The Tribunal shall apply the law or rules of law designated by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute. Failing such designation by the parties, the Tribunal shall apply the law or rules of law which it determines to be appropriate.
31.2 The Tribunal shall decide as amiable compositeur or ex aequo et bono only if the parties have expressly authorised it to do so.
31.3 In all cases, the Tribunal shall decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, if any, and shall take into account any applicable usage of trade.
32.1 The Tribunal shall, as promptly as possible, after consulting with the parties and upon being satisfied that the parties have no further relevant and material evidence to produce or submission to make with respect to the matters to be decided in the Award, declare the proceedings closed. The Tribunal’s declaration that the proceedings are closed shall be communicated to the parties and to the Registrar.
32.2 The Tribunal may, on its own motion or upon application of a party but before any Award is made, re-open the proceedings. The Tribunal's decision that the proceedings are to be re-opened shall be communicated to the parties and to the Registrar. The Tribunal shall close any re-opened proceedings in accordance with Rule 32.1.
32.3 Before making any Award, the Tribunal shall submit such Award in draft form to the Registrar. Unless the Registrar extends the period of time or unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the Tribunal shall submit the draft Award to the Registrar not later than 45 days from the date on which the Tribunal declares the proceedings closed. The Registrar may, as soon as practicable, suggest modifications as to the form of the Award and, without affecting the Tribunal's liberty to decide the dispute, draw the Tribunal’s attention to points of substance. No Award shall be made by the Tribunal until it has been approved by the Registrar as to its form.
32.4 The Award shall be in writing and shall state the reasons upon which it is based unless the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given.
32.5 Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the Tribunal may make separate Awards on different issues at different times.
32.6 If any arbitrator fails to cooperate in the making of the Award, having been given a reasonable opportunity to do so, the remaining arbitrators may proceed. The remaining arbitrators shall provide written notice of such refusal or failure to the Registrar, the parties and the absent arbitrator. In deciding whether to proceed with the arbitration in the absence of an arbitrator, the remaining arbitrators may take into account, among other things, the stage of the arbitration, any explanation provided by the absent arbitrator for his refusal to participate and the effect, if any, upon the enforceability of the Award should the remaining arbitrators proceed without the absent arbitrator. The remaining arbitrators shall explain in any Award made the reasons for proceeding without the absent arbitrator.
32.7 Where there is more than one arbitrator, the Tribunal shall decide by a majority. Failing a majority decision, the presiding arbitrator alone shall make the Award for the Tribunal.
32.8 The Award shall be delivered to the Registrar, who shall transmit certified copies to the parties upon full settlement of the costs of the arbitration.
32.9 The Tribunal may award simple or compound interest on any sum which is the subject of the arbitration at such rates as the parties may have agreed or, in the absence of such agreement, as the Tribunal determines to be appropriate, in respect of any period which the Tribunal determines to be appropriate.
32.10 In the event of a settlement, and if the parties so request, the Tribunal may make a consent Award recording the settlement. If the parties do not require a consent Award, the parties shall confirm to the Registrar that a settlement has been reached, following which the Tribunal shall be discharged and the arbitration concluded upon full settlement of the costs of the arbitration.
32.11 Subject to Rule 33 and Schedule 1, by agreeing to arbitration under these Rules, the parties agree that any Award shall be final and binding on the parties from the date it is made, and undertake to carry out the Award immediately and without delay. The parties also irrevocably waive their rights to any form of appeal, review or recourse to any State court or other judicial authority with respect to such Award insofar as such waiver may be validly made.
32.12 SIAC may, with the consent of the parties and the Tribunal, publish any Award with the names of the parties and other identifying information redacted.
33.1 Within 30 days of receipt of an Award, a party may, by written notice to the Registrar and the other party, request the Tribunal to correct in the Award any error in computation, any clerical or typographical error or any error of a similar nature. If the Tribunal considers the request to be justified, it shall make the correction within 30 days of receipt of the request. Any correction, made in the original Award or in a separate memorandum, shall constitute part of the Award.
33.2 The Tribunal may correct any error of the type referred to in Rule 33.1 on its own initiative within 30 days of the date of the Award.
33.3 Within 30 days of receipt of an Award, a party may, by written notice to the Registrar and the other party, request the Tribunal to make an additional Award as to claims presented in the arbitration but not dealt with in the Award. If the Tribunal considers the request to be justified, it shall make the additional Award within 45 days of receipt of the request.
33.4 Within 30 days of receipt of an Award, a party may, by written notice to the Registrar and the other party, request that the Tribunal give an interpretation of the Award. If the Tribunal considers the request to be justified, it shall provide the interpretation in writing within 45 days after receipt of the request. The interpretation shall form part of the Award.
33.5 The Registrar may, if necessary, extend the period of time within which the Tribunal shall make a correction of an Award, interpretation of an Award or an additional Award under this Rule.
33.6 The provisions of Rule 32 shall apply in the same manner with the necessary or appropriate changes in relation to a correction of an Award, interpretation of an Award and to any additional Award made.
34.1 The Tribunal’s fees and SIAC’s fees shall be ascertained in accordance with the Schedule of Fees in force at the time of commencement of the arbitration. The parties may agree to alternative methods of determining the Tribunal’s fees prior to the constitution of the Tribunal.
34.2 The Registrar shall fix the amount of deposits payable towards the costs of the arbitration. Unless the Registrar directs otherwise, 50% of such deposits shall be payable by the Claimant and the remaining 50% of such deposits shall be payable by the Respondent. The Registrar may fix separate deposits on costs for claims and counterclaims, respectively.
34.3 Where the amount of the claim or the counterclaim is not quantifiable at the time payment is due, a provisional estimate of the costs of the arbitration shall be made by the Registrar. Such estimate may be based on the nature of the controversy and the circumstances of the case. This estimate may be adjusted in light of such information as may subsequently become available.
34.4 The Registrar may from time to time direct parties to make further deposits towards the costs of the arbitration.
34.5 Parties are jointly and severally liable for the costs of the arbitration. Any party is free to pay the whole of the deposits towards the costs of the arbitration should the other party fail to pay its share.
34.6 If a party fails to pay the deposits directed by the Registrar either wholly or in part:
a. the Tribunal may suspend its work and the Registrar may suspend SIAC’s administration of the arbitration, in whole or in part; and
b. the Registrar may, after consultation with the Tribunal (if constituted) and after informing the parties, set a time limit on the expiry of which the relevant claims or counterclaims shall be considered as withdrawn without prejudice to the party reintroducing the same claims or counterclaims in another proceeding.
34.7 In all cases, the costs of the arbitration shall be finally determined by the Registrar at the conclusion of the proceedings. If the claim and/or counterclaim is not quantified, the Registrar shall finally determine the costs of the arbitration, as set out in Rule 35, in his discretion. The Registrar shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the stage of proceedings at which the arbitration concluded. In the event that the costs of the arbitration determined are less than the deposits made, there shall be a refund in such proportions as the parties may agree, or failing an agreement, in the same proportions as the deposits were made.
34.8 All deposits towards the costs of the arbitration shall be made to and held by SIAC. Any interest which may accrue on such deposits shall be retained by SIAC.
34.9 In exceptional circumstances, the Registrar may direct the parties to pay an additional fee, in addition to that prescribed in the applicable Schedule of Fees, as part of SIAC’s administration fees.
35.1 Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the Tribunal shall specify in the Award the total amount of the costs of the arbitration. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the Tribunal shall determine in the Award the apportionment of the costs of the arbitration among the parties.
35.2 The term “costs of the arbitration” includes:
a. the Tribunal’s fees and expenses and the Emergency Arbitrator’s fees and expenses, where applicable;
b. SIAC’s administration fees and expenses; and
c. the costs of any expert appointed by the Tribunal and of any other assistance reasonably required by the Tribunal.
36.1 The fees of the Tribunal shall be fixed by the Registrar in accordance with the applicable Schedule of Fees or, if applicable, with the method agreed by the parties pursuant to Rule 34.1, and the stage of the proceedings at which the arbitration concluded. In exceptional circumstances, the Registrar may determine that an additional fee over that prescribed in the applicable Schedule of Fees shall be paid.
36.2 The Tribunal’s reasonable out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred and other allowances shall be reimbursed in accordance with the applicable Practice Note.

The Tribunal shall have the authority to order in its Award that all or a part of the legal or other costs of a party be paid by another party.
38.1 Any arbitrator, including any Emergency Arbitrator, any person appointed by the Tribunal, including any administrative secretary and any expert, the President, members of the Court, and any directors, officers and employees of SIAC, shall not be liable to any person for any negligence, act or omission in connection with any arbitration administered by SIAC in accordance with these Rules.
38.2 SIAC, including the President, members of the Court, directors, officers, employees or any arbitrator, including any Emergency Arbitrator, and any person appointed by the Tribunal, including any administrative secretary and any expert, shall not be under any obligation to make any statement in connection with any arbitration administered by SIAC in accordance with these Rules. No party shall seek to make the President, any member of the Court, director, officer, employee of SIAC, or any arbitrator, including any Emergency Arbitrator, and any person appointed by the Tribunal, including any administrative secretary and any expert, act as a witness in any legal proceedings in connection with any arbitration administered by SIAC in accordance with these Rules.
39.1 Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party and any arbitrator, including any Emergency Arbitrator, and any person appointed by the Tribunal, including any administrative secretary and any expert, shall at all times treat all matters relating to the proceedings and the Award as confidential. The discussions and deliberations of the Tribunal shall be confidential.
39.2 Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party or any arbitrator, including any Emergency Arbitrator, and any person appointed by the Tribunal, including any administrative secretary and any expert, shall not, without the prior written consent of the parties, disclose to a third party any such matter except:
a. for the purpose of making an application to any competent court of any State to enforce or challenge the Award;
b. pursuant to the order of or a subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction;
c. for the purpose of pursuing or enforcing a legal right or claim;
d. in compliance with the provisions of the laws of any State which are binding on the party making the disclosure or the request or requirement of any regulatory body or other authority;
e. pursuant to an order by the Tribunal on application by a party with proper notice to the other parties; or
f. for the purpose of any application under Rule 7 or Rule 8 of these Rules.
39.3 In Rule 39.1, “matters relating to the proceedings” includes the existence of the proceedings, and the pleadings, evidence and other materials in the arbitral proceedings and all other documents produced by another party in the proceedings or the Award arising from the proceedings, but excludes any matter that is otherwise in the public domain.
39.4 The Tribunal has the power to take appropriate measures, including issuing an order or Award for sanctions or costs, if a party breaches the provisions of this Rule.
40.1 Except as provided in these Rules, the decisions of the President, the Court and the Registrar with respect to all matters relating to an arbitration shall be conclusive and binding upon the parties and the Tribunal. The President, the Court and the Registrar shall not be required to provide reasons for such decisions, unless the Court determines otherwise or as may be provided in these Rules. The parties agree that the discussions and deliberations of the Court are confidential.
40.2 Save in respect of Rule 16.1 and Rule 28.1, the parties waive any right of appeal or review in respect of any decisions of the President, the Court and the Registrar to any State court or other judicial authority.
41.1 Any party that proceeds with the arbitration without promptly raising any objection to a failure to comply with any provision of these Rules, or of any other rules applicable to the proceedings, any direction given by the Tribunal, or any requirement under the arbitration agreement relating to the constitution of the Tribunal or the conduct of the proceedings, shall be deemed to have waived its right to object.
41.2 In all matters not expressly provided for in these Rules, the President, the Court, the Registrar and the Tribunal shall act in the spirit of these Rules and shall make every reasonable effort to ensure the fair, expeditious and economical conclusion of the arbitration and the enforceability of any Award.
41.3 In the event of any discrepancy or inconsistency between the English version of these Rules and any other languages in which these Rules are published, the English version shall prevail.
  1.  A party that wishes to seek emergency interim relief may, concurrent with or following the filing of a Notice of Arbitration but prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, file an application for emergency interim relief with the Registrar. The party shall, at the same time as it files the application for emergency interim relief, send a copy of the application to all other parties. The application for emergency interim relief shall include:
    a. the nature of the relief sought;

    b. the reasons why the party is entitled to such relief; and
    c. a statement certifying that all other parties have been provided with a copy of the application or, if not, an explanation of the steps taken in good faith to provide a copy or notification to all other parties.

  2. Any application for emergency interim relief shall be accompanied by payment of the non-refundable administration fee and the requisite deposits under these Rules towards the Emergency Arbitrator’s fees and expenses for proceedings pursuant to this Schedule 1. In appropriate cases, the Registrar may increase the amount of the deposits requested from the party making the application. If the additional deposits are not paid within the time limit set by the Registrar, the application shall be considered as withdrawn.
  3. The President shall, if he determines that SIAC should accept the application for emergency interim relief, seek to appoint an Emergency Arbitrator within one day of receipt by the Registrar of such application and payment of the administration fee and deposits.
  4. If the parties have agreed on the seat of the arbitration, such seat shall be the seat of the proceedings for emergency interim relief. Failing such an agreement, the seat of the proceedings for emergency interim relief shall be Singapore, without prejudice to the Tribunal’s determination of the seat of the arbitration under Rule 21.1.
  5. Prior to accepting appointment, a prospective Emergency Arbitrator shall disclose to the Registrar any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. Any challenge to the appointment of the Emergency Arbitrator must be made within two days of the communication by the Registrar to the parties of the appointment of the Emergency Arbitrator and the circumstances disclosed.
  6. An Emergency Arbitrator may not act as an arbitrator in any future arbitration relating to the dispute, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
  7. The Emergency Arbitrator shall, as soon as possible but, in any event, within two days of his appointment, establish a schedule for consideration of the application for emergency interim relief. Such schedule shall provide a reasonable opportunity for the parties to be heard, but may provide for proceedings by telephone or video conference or on written submissions as alternatives to a hearing in person. The Emergency Arbitrator shall have the powers vested in the Tribunal pursuant to these Rules, including the authority to rule on his own jurisdiction, without prejudice to the Tribunal’s determination.
  8. The Emergency Arbitrator shall have the power to order or award any interim relief that he deems necessary, including preliminary orders that may be made pending any hearing, telephone or video conference or written submissions by the parties. The Emergency Arbitrator shall give summary reasons for his decision in writing. The Emergency Arbitrator may modify or vacate the preliminary order, the interim order or Award for good cause.
  9. The Emergency Arbitrator shall make his interim order or Award within 14 days from the date of his appointment unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Registrar extends the time. No interim order or Award shall be made by the Emergency Arbitrator until it has been approved by the Registrar as to its form.
  10. The Emergency Arbitrator shall have no power to act after the Tribunal is constituted. The Tribunal may reconsider, modify or vacate any interim order or Award issued by the Emergency Arbitrator, including a ruling on his own jurisdiction. The Tribunal is not bound by the reasons given by the Emergency Arbitrator. Any interim order or Award issued by the Emergency Arbitrator shall, in any event, cease to be binding if the Tribunal is not constituted within 90 days of such order or Award or when the Tribunal makes a final Award or if the claim is withdrawn.
  11. Any interim order or Award by the Emergency Arbitrator may be conditioned on provision by the party seeking such relief of appropriate security.
  12. The parties agree that an order or Award by an Emergency Arbitrator pursuant to this Schedule 1 shall be binding on the parties from the date it is made, and undertake to carry out the interim order or Award immediately and without delay. The parties also irrevocably waive their rights to any form of appeal, review or recourse to any State court or other judicial authority with respect to such Award insofar as such waiver may be validly made.
  13. The costs associated with any application pursuant to this Schedule 1 may initially be apportioned by the Emergency Arbitrator, subject to the power of the Tribunal to determine finally the apportionment of such costs.
  14. These Rules shall apply as appropriate to any proceeding pursuant to this Schedule 1, taking into account the urgency of such a proceeding. The Emergency Arbitrator may decide in what manner these Rules shall apply as appropriate, and his decision as to such matters is final and not subject to appeal, review or recourse. The Registrar may abbreviate any time limits under these Rules in applications made pursuant to proceedings commenced under Rule 30.2 and Schedule 1.
Back to Top

Start typing and press enter to search

Fill up the form to subscribe

HOW-TO GUIDES (coming soon)

Guide for Arbitrators
Guide for Claimants and Respondents
Guide for Electronic Filing

FAQs

Click Here

TERMS & CONDITIONS

Click Here

contact us

Click Here

margarita drobyshevskaIa, DEPUTY COUNSEL

Margarita is a Russian qualified lawyer. Before joining SIAC, Margarita worked at an arbitral institution in Russia, managing both domestic and international commercial arbitration cases and contributing to research and educational initiatives.

Margarita holds a Bachelor of Laws from the Higher School of Economics, Moscow (HSE University) and a Master of Laws from the Russian School of Private Law, Moscow. She is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Contract Law at the Lomonosov Moscow State University.

Margarita is actively involved in the moot court community, coaching teams for the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot and holding a leadership role in the Moot Alumni Association (MAA). Margarita is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Russian Women in Arbitration (RWA).

Margarita is fluent in English and Russian.

Email: mdrobyshevskaia@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

NGUYEN THI MAI ANH, DEPUTY COUNSEL

Mai Anh is a Vietnamese-qualified lawyer. She holds an LL.B. from the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam and an LL.M. from Maastricht University, the Netherlands.

Before joining SIAC, Mai Anh was an associate at a tier-one law firm in Vietnam. Her practice focussed on litigation and international arbitration, primarily in the construction sector. She also brings experience from an international arbitration centre and worked as an assistant lecturer and researcher at the International Law Faculty of the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam.

Mai Anh has co-authored several publications on arbitration practice in Vietnam, including the Vietnam chapters in the Global Arbitration Review (2020-2023), the Delos Guide to Arbitration Places (2020-2021), the World Arbitration Reporter (2019), and the ICC Guide to National Rules of Procedure for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards under the New York Convention (2019).

Mai Anh can work in English and Vietnamese.

Email: maianhnt@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

PAULINE LOW, COUNSEL

Pauline is a Malaysian-qualified lawyer with a background in litigation and arbitration. Prior to joining SIAC, Pauline practiced at a top-tier law firm in Malaysia. She read law at the University of Malaya under a full scholarship from an international oil & gas company and was placed on the Dean’s List. During her time in law school, Pauline was active in moot court competitions and represented Malaysia in international competitions.

Pauline is fluent in English and Bahasa Malaysia and a competent speaker of Cantonese and Mandarin. She also has a good understanding of Bahasa Indonesia.

Email: paulinelow@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

LIM SHI JEAN, COUNSEL (TEAM LEAD)

Shi Jean graduated with an LL.B. (Hons) from the Singapore Management University School of Law. She is admitted to practice as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Prior to joining SIAC, she practiced shipping and commercial litigation at a law firm in Singapore.

Email: shijeanlim@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

CHONG YEE LEONG

CHONG YEE LEONG, DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Yee Leong is the Co-Head of Allen & Gledhill LLP’s International Arbitration practice. His primary area of practice is in international arbitration focusing on the areas of energy, oil and gas, power and infrastructure projects in Singapore, Malaysia and the region. In practice for more than 29 years, Yee Leong is recognised as a leading international dispute resolution practitioner in the Asia-Pacific region.

Yee Leong is a Chartered Arbitrator and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators. He is a Director of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and also on the panel of arbitrators for SIAC, Asian International Arbitration Centre and CIArb Presidential Panel of Arbitrators. He is also a Jurisdictional Council Member for Singapore for Inter-Pacific Bar Association and Chairman for Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee for the Law Society of Singapore.

Yee Leong also served as a director of Singapore LNG Pte Ltd from 2011 to 2015. In 2018, he was among the inaugural batch of select practitioners to be recognised as a Senior Accredited Specialist in Building and Construction Law by the Singapore Academy of Law.

PRANAV BUDIHAL, DEPUTY COUNSEL

Pranav graduated with an LL.M (International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution) from the National University of Singapore. He also holds a B.B.A.LL.B (Hons) degree from National Law University Odisha, India. During his time at NLUO, he represented the university in various moot court competitions, including the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot, Vienna.

He is admitted as an Advocate with the Bar Council of India. Prior to joining SIAC, Pranav worked with a boutique dispute resolution firm in India where his practice focussed on commercial litigation and arbitrations across the construction, energy and trade sectors.

Pranav is fluent in English and can speak Hindi and Kannada. He also has a good understanding of Telugu.

Email: pranavbudihal@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

SIRAJ OMAR

SIRAJ OMAR, SC, MEMBER

Mr Siraj Omar, S.C. is a Director in the Dispute Resolution department at Drew & Napier LLC. He specializes in complex, high-value commercial disputes and has more than two decades of active trial and appellate practice in the Singapore Courts and in international arbitrations.

He is a civilian panel member on the Military Court of Appeal, Deputy Commissioner of the Government Procurement Adjudication Tribunal and a member of the Specialist Mediator Panel (Singapore) of the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC).

Siraj holds Fellowships at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb), the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators (SIArb) and the Singapore Academy of Law. He is also a member of the International Association of Defence Counsel.

He sits on the Working Group of the Professional Conduct Council chaired by the Chief Justice of Singapore and the Accreditation Committee of the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (SILE) and was a member of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules Sub-Committee. He is a past member of the Council of The Law Society of Singapore and has been a member of its Inquiry Panel since 2009.
 
Siraj is recognized in all the leading legal directories and has been described as “a star” and “a formidable litigator”.

He was appointed Senior Counsel in 2019.

THEA ELYSSA VEGA, COUNSEL

Prior to joining the SIAC, Thea was an Associate Solicitor at the Office of the Solicitor General in the Philippines where she handled criminal, civil, international commercial, and investor-state arbitration. She has also handled cases across various sectors such as energy, public-private partnerships, gaming, competition law, among others. She was also once part of the Philippine delegation in the UNCITRAL Working Group III on Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform.  She also worked as legal intern at the Philippine Supreme Court. 

Thea earned her Juris Doctor Degree (J.D.) from the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law in the Philippines and is admitted to the Philippine Bar.

Thea speaks Filipino (Cebuano and Tagalog) and English.

Email: theavega@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

GERALD SINGHAM

GERALD SINGHAM, MEMBER

Gerald Singham is the Global Vice-Chair & ASEAN CEO at Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP. He is also a Senior Partner of Dentons Rodyk’s Corporate Practice Department and Co-Head of the Competition and Antitrust Practice. Gerald has extensive experience advising domestic and multinational clients from a broad range of industries on competition law matters and deals with all aspects of competition law, including merger clearance/notifications, cartel investigations, and advising on competition restrictive practices and sectoral competition laws. Apart from the competition area, he has experience in other aspects of corporate transactions like mergers and acquisitions, private equity and foreign direct investments.

Gerald is named in numerous legal guides and directories including the Chambers Asia Pacific, The Legal 500 Asia Pacific, Global Competition Review, Who’s Who Legal, IFLR1000, Asialaw Leading Lawyers and Best Lawyers.

Gerald is also appointed on the boards of several public agencies including as Chairman of National Crime Prevention Council, National Heritage Board and Republic Polytechnic. He is also appointed as a member of the Military Court of Appeal.

RAJIV K LUTHRA

RAJIV K LUTHRA, MEMBER

Mr Rajiv K Luthra is the Founder and Managing Partner of L&L Partners (formerly Luthra & Luthra Law Offices), a full- service top-tier Indian law firm.

Mr Luthra has been closely involved with the development of Project Finance and Public-Private-Partnership models in India and has advised on Infrastructure Projects worth over US$ 100 billion and recently he has been recognised as ‘Leader’ for Project Finance practice by Who’s Who Legal, 2021.

He has also been inducted in ‘Hall of Fame’ for Corporate and M&A, India by Legal 500, 2021. And has been featured in ‘Top 50 Legal Icons, India’ by India Business Law Journal. He is also a recipient of the ‘National Law Day Award’ bestowed upon him by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and the Chief justice of India the ‘Managing Partner of the Year 2020’ Award by ALB India, Inducted in the ‘M&A Hall of Fame, New York’ and the ‘International Jurists Award’’ by the Attorney-General and Chief Justice of the United Kingdom among several others.

He has been conferred with Alumni of Harvard Law School and a Fellow of the British Commerce Society and the Royal Geographical Society and has served on a number of high-level committees, including the High Level Advisory Group, appointed by Commerce Ministry to formulate India’s trade policies; High Level Committee on Corporate Social Responsibility; Securities Exchange Board of India high level committees for (i) Reviewing Insider Trading Regulations and (iii) Rationalization of Investment Routes and Monitoring of Foreign Portfolio Investments; Advisory Board of the Competition Commission of India amongst others. He is also the Convener of the Joint Economic & Trade Committee, formed to advise the Government of India on the liberalisation of legal services between India and the UK.

He also serves on the Board of the Symphony International Holdings Limited (a London Stock Exchange listed company) and Network18 Media & Investments Limited as an Independent Director. He is also a former member of the Corporate Governance & Audit Committee of the Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (India) [HSBC].

MICHAEL MOSE

MICHAEL MOSER, MEMBER

Michael Moser is an international arbitrator with Twenty Essex Chambers. He is a Chartered Arbitrator, a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and a Fellow of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators. He received his law degree from the Harvard Law School and holds a PhD (With Distinction) from Columbia University.

Mr Moser has served as Chairman of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), Board Member of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) and Court Member of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). He currently sits as a member of the Board of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the Vienna International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) and the Governing Board of the International Council on Commercial Arbitration (ICCA).

Mr Moser is the author or editor of many books and articles, including Manging “Belt and Road” Business Disputes: A Case Study of Legal Problems and Solutions (Kluwer, 2021), A Guide to the HKIAC Arbitration Rules (OUP, 2021 and 2017), The Asia Arbitration Handbook (OUP, 2011) and former General Editor of The Journal of International Arbitration.

Resident in Asia for more than 40 years, Mr Moser works principally from offices in Hong Kong and Singapore. He has acted as arbitrator in more than 300 cases under the UNCITRAL Rules and the institutional rules of the SIAC, the ICC, ICSID, HKIAC, JCAA, LCIA, ICDR and others. Fluent in Chinese (Putonghua), he was the first foreigner to be appointed an arbitrator in China in the 1980’s. In recognition of his contributions to arbitration in Asia, Mr Moser was awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award by Chambers. He is consistently rated as being one of the “very best” and “most in demand” arbitrators globally.

LUCY F. REED

LUCY REED, PRESIDENT

Lucy Reed is President of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Court. Lucy, an independent arbitrator with Arbitration Chambers (New York), is also the immediate past President of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA). She retired in 2016 from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, where she led the global international arbitration group from the New York, Hong Kong and Singapore offices, and then was Professor of Practice and Director of the Centre for International Law at NUS through 2019. 

In addition to practicing international commercial and investment treaty arbitration, she served as an arbitrator on the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission (a humanitarian law/Geneva Convention claims commission), co-director of the Claims Resolution Tribunal for Dormant Accounts in Switzerland (a Holocaust claims tribunal) and, while with the US State Department, the US Agent to the Iran-US Claims Tribunal. 

Lucy, a member of the US Council on Foreign Relations, is a former President of the American Society of International Law. She was educated at the University of Chicago Law School and Brown University.

LUKE ANDREW SOBOTA

LUKE ANDREW SOBOTA, MEMBER

Luke Sobota is a founding and managing partner of Three Crowns, resident in the Washington DC office. His practice is dedicated to commercial, investor-state, and inter-state arbitration, and he has extensive experience in the technology, energy, and financial sectors. He is recognized in leading directories and rankings, such as Chambers & Partners, Legal 500, and Who’s Who Legal.

Luke is a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School and an Adjunct Professor at the University of Miami Law School. Among other publications, he is co-author of General Principles of Law and International Due Process (Oxford University Press, 2017) and the second edition of Judge Stephen Schwebel’s International Arbitration: Three Salient Principles (Cambridge University Press, anticipated 2020).

THAM SAI CHOY

THAM SAI CHOY, MEMBER

Mr Tham Sai Choy is a chartered accountant. He was the managing partner of KPMG Singapore and then chairman of its KPMG Asia Pacific operations when he retired. As an accountant in practice, he led audits, investigations and consultancy work at a wide range of Singapore companies.

He serves on the boards of the Nanyang Polytechnic and Mount Alvernia Hospital, chairing their audit committees, and on the boards of Keppel Corporation Limited, and DBS Group Holdings Limited. He is also the Chairman of EM Services Private Limited.

Mr Tham trained and qualified as a Chartered Accountant in the UK. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and the Singapore Institute of Directors.

ARIEL YE

ARIEL YE, MEMBER

Ms Ye is the senior partner of King & Wood Mallesons PRC’s cross-border dispute resolution practice and a recognised expert on PRC-related dispute resolution in the Asia Pacific region.

Ms Ye is a former member of the board of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) and a member of the advisory board of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA), a former court member of Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) and a member of the SIAC Board of Directors. Ms. Ye is also a former court member of London Court of International Arbitration. She has been frequently invited to speak at international and regional professional conferences as an international arbitration expert as she is recognized as a leading counsel and arbitrator for international arbitration cases.

Ms Ye received her LL.B. from Peking University Law School, and holds LL.Ms from the Law School of China Academy of Social Sciences and Harvard Law School. She was admitted to practice in PRC and New York State in 1988 and 1999, respectively.

GLORIA LIM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

As the Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s (SIAC) Chief Executive Officer, Gloria works closely with the Chairman and the Board in formulating and fulfilling the vision and strategies for SIAC, and is responsible for the overall management and operations of the institution.

Gloria was previously the Director of the Legal Industry Division in Singapore’s Ministry of Law and concurrently held the statutory appointment of Director of Legal Services, heading its Legal Services Regulatory Authority. As Director of the Legal Industry Division, she oversaw the development of Singapore’s legal sector, as well as the development and promotion of the international dispute resolution regime in Singapore. In 2008, Gloria was awarded the Public Administration Medal (Bronze) for her contributions as General Manager of the Community Mediation Unit. In 2016, she was awarded the Public Administration Medal (Silver) for her contributions as Director of the Legal Industry Division. In 2023, she was a recipient of the National Awards (Covid-19) – Covid-19 Resilience Medal. 

Gloria also headed the Singapore delegation involved in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group II (Dispute Settlement) discussions from 2019-2021. Gloria is experienced in legal policy, alternative dispute resolution and community mediation.

She graduated from the National University of Singapore (NUS) and is called to the Singapore Bar. She also holds a Graduate Certificate in International Arbitration from NUS and an LL.M from Harvard University.

KEVIN NASH, REGISTRAR

As Registrar of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, Kevin leads the SIAC Secretariat in the provision of case management services. Over the course of the past decade, Kevin has overseen the administration of thousands of international cases under all versions of the SIAC Rules and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. Under the Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994, Kevin is the statutory taxation authority and he is empowered to authenticate and certify awards and arbitration agreements. 

Kevin worked closely on the revisions to the SIAC Rules 2013, SIAC Rules 2016, SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules 2017, and leads the SIAC Secretariat on the drafting of the seventh edition of the SIAC Rules. He is an active participant at UNCITRAL Working Group II (Dispute Settlement) and UNCITRAL Working Group III (ISDS) and frequently speaks, lectures and conducts training on contemporary issues in arbitration. 

Recognised for being ‘truly exceptional in his passion for, and knowledge of, international arbitration’, Kevin is listed by Who’s Who Legal as a Global Leader and National Leader for Southeast Asia in international arbitration. Described as a ‘rock star of arbitration’ and ‘a calm presence and a safe pair of hands for the most complex matters’, peers and clients say that he is ‘without equal in the region, in terms of institutional knowledge and expertise in international arbitration’ and that ‘no one knows more about arbitration in Singapore’. 

Kevin is qualified as a Barrister and Solicitor with the Law Society of Upper Canada. He speaks English and French. 

Email: kevinnash@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

ALIONA BITKIVSKAJA

ALIONA BITKIVSKAJA, COUNSEL

Aliona graduated with an LL.M. in International Business Law from the National University of Singapore, specializing in International Arbitration, International Investment Law and Comparative Oil and Gas Law. She also holds a B.A. degree in Anthropology and Law from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Prior to joining SIAC, Aliona worked at a global financial services provider and completed internships at international law firms in Europe and Asia.

Aliona is a New York-qualified lawyer. She is fluent in English, Russian and Lithuanian.

Email: alionabitkivskaja@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

QIAN WU, COUNSEL (TEAM LEAD)

Qian is a graduate of Sichuan University (Bachelor’s degree in law), Xiamen University (Master’s degree in law) and the Geneva LL.M. in International Dispute Settlement (MIDS). Qian is also the Assistant Editor of Asian International Arbitration Journal.

Qualified in China, Qian practiced litigation and arbitration in Beijing with a Chinese law firm prior to joining SIAC.

Qian is fluent in Mandarin and English.

Email: qianwu@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

KENDISTA WANTAH

KENDISTA WANTAH, COUNSEL

Kendista graduated from Universitas Katolik Parahyangan where he actively participated and performed with distinction in international moot court competitions. Kendista thereafter practiced commercial litigation and arbitration – both national and international – with leading dispute resolution firms in Indonesia. He also clerked for one of the foremost Indonesian arbitrators prior to joining SIAC.

Kendista is admitted to the Indonesian Bar. He is fluent in English and Bahasa Indonesia.

Email: kendistawantah@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

DEXTER CHENG, COUNSEL

Dexter graduated with a LL.B. (Hons) from the National University of Singapore. He is admitted to practice as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Prior to joining SIAC, Dexter trained with a boutique law firm in Singapore which specialises in corporate and commercial law.

Dexter is fluent in English and Madarin.

Email: dextercheng@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

VIJAYENDRA PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER

Vijayendra Pratap Singh is a Senior Partner and Head (Dispute Resolution) at AZB & Partners, Delhi. Vijayendra has spearheaded various arbitrations concerning shareholder agreements, option contracts, long term supply (including restitution claims on account of cancellation of coal blocks), confidentiality, franchising and intellectual property issues. The arbitrations are both ad hoc as well as institutional and seated across multiple jurisdictions. He represented SIAC in the BALCO case before the Supreme Court on the scope and extent of judicial intervention of Indian courts with foreign seated arbitrations. He presently represents Amazon in the much publicised dispute with Future Retail Limited which recognized the enforceability of a SIAC emergency arbitrator award in India. 

Vijayendra is listed in various legal directories such as Chambers & Partners and Legal 500. He has been named as the Dispute Resolution Star of the Year by Benchmark Litigation Asia Pacific and has been named in the Global Arbitration Review. He has been involved with capacity building initiatives in the field of arbitration and is a visiting faculty at various Universities and Institutions. He has also appeared before Parliamentary committees looking at various laws, including India’s Model Bilateral Investment Treaty.

CHAN HOCK KENG, MEMBER

CHAN Hock Keng is the Co-Head of WongPartnership’s Commercial & Corporate Disputes Practice and a Partner in the International Arbitration Practice. He has an active practice as a counsel in Court proceedings and international arbitrations and regularly sits as an arbitrator.

He is a Honorary Legal Adviser to the Singapore Medical Association, a panel member of the Inquiry Committee as well as the Disciplinary Tribunal appointed by the Chief Justice to hear complaints against lawyers. He is also a Honorary Council Member of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce & Industry.

On the arbitration front, Hock Keng has been newly appointed as a member of the Court of Arbitration of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. He is also a Chartered Arbitrator of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and a panel member of various arbitration centres.

Hock Keng is recognised as a leading individual for his arbitration expertise by Chambers Asia-Pacific Leading Lawyers for Business and is commended by clients as a “very creative lawyer” and who is “commercially minded and very quick to grasp points opposing counsels make”.

CYRIL SHROFF, MEMBER

Cyril Shroff has over 41 years of experience in a wide range of practices areas, including corporate and securities law, disputes, banking, bankruptcy and infrastructure.

Over the years, his passion for a just world, blended with a keen sense of fairness and empathy has helped cam firmly establish itself as a trusted advisor to its clients. Mr. Shroff has consistently been ranked as “eminent practitioner” in India by Chambers & Partners and is often regarded as the “M&A King of India”. A thought leader and a visionary, Mr. Shroff is known for advising on many first of their kind transactions in India.

He is the Chairman of FICCI’s Corporate Laws Committee and chair of the CII Financial Regulatory Committee. He is a member of the RBI working committee on regulatory issues relating to Fintech. He is also a member of CII’s national start-up council, a member on the Board of SIAC, a member of the first apex advisory committee of the IMC International ADR Centre, and a Task force member of the Society of Insolvency Practitioners of India. He was a member of SEBI’s constituted Uday Kotak Committee on Corporate Governance.

He is also a member of the Thought Committee on Bank Insolvency of the Insolvency Law Academy.

Andres Larrea Savinovich

ANDRES LARREA SAVINOVICH, DEPUTY COUNSEL

Andres is an Ecuadorian-qualified lawyer. Prior to joining SIAC, Andres worked as a Senior Associate at an Ecuadorian law firm for twelve years where he represented parties in commercial and investment arbitrations across a range of sectors, including natural resources, mining, insurance, telecommunications and construction. Andres has been appointed as an arbitral secretary in over 60 arbitration cases administered by the most important arbitration centres in Ecuador.

Andres holds an LL.M. from McGill University. While he was at McGill he served as an associate editor for the McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution. He is a member of the LATAM Subcommittee of the Campaign for Greener Arbitrations, CyberArb, Rising Arbitrators Initiative and the Club of Arbitration of Spain.

Andres is fluent in English and Spanish.

Email: andresfrancisco@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

Lee Yoke Peng, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

As the Chief Operating Officer, Yoke Peng works with the Board and the Senior Management team to create value for SIAC by transforming corporate and organisational processes and implementing productivity and technology initiatives.  She was previously the Registrar for Re-Align Framework Registry in Ministry of Law, where she set up and headed the Registry to help businesses to realign their contracts with the pandemic business conditions.  Yoke Peng had a myriad of experiences from both the private and public sectors, ranging from legal practice, to entrepreneurial set-ups, and government agencies.  In her stint in Public Service Division, she was in the PS21 office where she helped to develop and implement programmes that promoted increasing levels of innovation and positive change in public services, and enhanced their efficiency and responsiveness.  In Civil Service College, she headed up departments that were in-charge of corporate functions like human resource, training, talent retention and attraction, strategic planning, corporate communications, IT, corporate governance, administrative and infrastructure work, and board secretariat work.  Yoke Peng graduated from the National University of Singapore (NUS) and is called to the Singapore Bar.

RISHABH, DEPUTY COUNSEL

orem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nullam a rutrum odio. Vestibulum ornare sagittis nisi vitae vestibulum. Vestibulum eget lacus dui. Vestibulum rhoncus imperdiet blandit. Ut tincidunt vitae massa non lacinia. Maecenas id nisi eget ligula lobortis faucibus. Fusce vel ante vulputate, vestibulum eros ut, molestie felis. Vivamus facilisis nisl at efficitur venenatis. Aliquam lobortis, est ac vehicula consequat, lectus urna sodales nisl, eu bibendum ipsum risus dignissim lacus. Mauris bibendum ligula at dignissim blandit. Morbi sapien orci, rutrum a ultricies vel, dictum sed velit. Aenean sed aliquet tortor. Donec ornare lobortis elit, id vulputate nisi luctus sit amet.

Ut luctus ante ut pulvinar bibendum. In facilisis turpis id est ullamcorper efficitur vitae quis magna. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia curae; Duis ut ultricies nibh, in accumsan velit. Morbi lobortis urna ut urna commodo dapibus. Sed at risus tellus. Quisque vel ipsum et mi ultricies euismod sodales tristique quam.

Mr Cunyuan Zhang, Director & Head, China / Chief Representative of Shanghai Representative Office

Mr Cunyuan Zhang is Head (China) of Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), and Chief Representative of SIAC’s Shanghai Representative Office. He is responsible for overseeing SIAC’s activities in China.

Since joining SIAC, Cunyuan has worked with key stakeholders of business and legal communities to promote the development of international arbitration and global best practices, by organising training workshops and networking events for in-house counsel, practitioners and arbitrators. He is a frequent speaker on arbitration topics, and conducts lectures and training sessions for arbitration users. He is a member of the SIAC delegation at UNCITRAL Working Group II (Dispute Resolution). He graduated from Renmin University of China and Peking University School of Transnational Law, with Bachelor’s degree, JD and JM Degrees. He is qualified as an attorney in China.

Prior to joining SIAC, he worked in a leading Chinese law firm in Beijing, where he advised and represented clients in international arbitrations and related lawsuits.

张寸渊先生担任新加坡国际仲裁中心（SIAC）中国区主任兼上海代表处首席代表，负责处理新仲在中国区的各项事务。

自加入新仲以来，他与商界和法律界的主要利益相关者合作，为公司法务、律师和仲裁员组织培训研讨会和交流活动，促进国际仲裁和全球最佳实践的发展。他经常就仲裁相关话题发言，并为用户提供培训。他是新仲在联合国国际贸易法委员会第二工作组（争议解决）的代表团成员。他毕业于中国人民大学和北京大学国际法学院，获得文学学士，美国法JD以及中国法律硕士学位。他具有中国律师资格。

在加入新仲之前，他曾在一家行业领先的中国律师事务所北京办公室工作，代理国际仲裁及相关诉讼案件。

ADRIANA USON, Director & Head, Americas

As Director & Head, Americas, at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Adriana oversees SIAC’s activities in North and South America. She has broad experience as an arbitration practitioner – having served as arbitrator, international arbitration lawyer, and Counsel in the SIAC Secretariat.

Adriana first joined SIAC as Counsel, during which time she administered over two hundred cases under the SIAC Rules and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, with a particular focus on disputes involving States, State-controlled entities, and intergovernmental organisations. She was involved in the drafting of the SIAC Rules 2016, SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules 2017, and the SIAC Practice Notes on third party funding. She was also a key contributor in the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators (SIArb) working group that published the SIArb Guidelines on Party-Representative Ethics.

Prior to rejoining SIAC, Adriana was a disputes lawyer at a leading international law firm in Singapore, where she advised and represented clients in international commercial and ICSID arbitrations.

Adriana is an active member of the Young SIAC Committee (YSIAC) and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Singapore) Young Members Group.

Shwetha Bidhuri, Director & Head, South Asia

Shwetha joined SIAC in November 2018 and is based in the SIAC Mumbai Office.

Shwetha was enrolled as an Advocate in 2007 and holds a Master of Laws degree. Prior to joining SIAC, Shwetha worked in the dispute resolution practice of a leading law firm in New Delhi for nearly a decade on commercial litigation cases as well as investment treaty arbitrations involving foreign and Indian investors. Shwetha has worked on many leading cases which have contributed to the development of law affecting global companies.

ALVIN YEO, SC, MEMBER

Mr Alvin Yeo, Senior Counsel, is the Chairman and Senior Partner at WongPartnership LLP, Singapore. His main areas of practice are litigation and arbitration in banking, corporate/commercial and infrastructure disputes. Mr Yeo has extensive experience as counsel in arbitration proceedings both in Singapore and in the region, and also sits as an arbitrator. Mr Yeo graduated from King’s College, University of London, and is admitted to the English Bar (Gray’s Inn) and the Singapore Bar. In January 2000, Mr Yeo became the youngest lawyer to be appointed Senior Counsel.

Mr Yeo is a member of the Court of the SIAC, the ICC Commission and a fellow of the Asian Institute of Alternative Dispute Resolution, the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators and the Singapore Institute of Directors, and a former member of the LCIA Court and the IBA Arbitration Committee. He is also on the panel of arbitrators of the ICDR, HKIAC, KCAB, SCIA and the SIArb’s Panel for Sports in Singapore.

Mr Yeo is recognised as a leading litigation and arbitration counsel in international legal directories such as The Legal 500; IFLR1000; Chambers Global; Chambers Asia Pacific; PLC Which Lawyer; Best Lawyers; Expert Guides; and Who’s Who Legal.

GAËTAN VERHOOSEL KC, MEMBER

Gaëtan is a founding partner of Three Crowns. He has served as advocate and as arbitrator in a large number of both commercial and investment treaty arbitrations.

Gaëtan is a past Senior Co-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the International Bar Association and was appointed to the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators by the Kingdom of Belgium. He teaches at King’s College School of Law in London. Before entering private practice, he served as a Legal Advisor at the World Trade Organization in Geneva, where he advised dispute settlement panels adjudicating disputes between sovereigns across a range of industry sectors.

Gaëtan is admitted to practice in England & Wales, where he was appointed Queen’s Counsel in December 2021, as well as France and Spain. He was educated at Columbia Law School, the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, and the Catholic University of Leuven.

ALAN THAMBIAYAH, MEMBER

Since 1989, Mr Thambiayah has been appointed as chairman of arbitral tribunals, sole arbitrator or co-arbitrator in over 450 ad-hoc and institutional arbitrations of disputes arising from international investment contracts and joint ventures, infrastructure, building & civil engineering contracts, oil and gas operation, distribution and transport network contracts, and maritime and international trade contracts (including charterparties and export finance), in Bangkok, Colombo, Delhi, Hong Kong, Karachi, Kolkata, Kuala Lumpur, London, Mumbai, New York, Paris, Perth, Seoul, Sydney and Singapore, with the total value of claims in excess of US$8 billion.

These appointments include: as sole arbitrator by the High Court of Singapore, by the ICC, ICDR, HKIAC and SIAC, acting as the appointing authorities; as presiding arbitrator by party appointed arbitrators from Australia, Malaysia, Seoul, London, U.S.A., Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and Singapore, and by the ICC and AIAC, acting as the appointing authorities; and as co-arbitrator by parties from various countries and by the ICC, ICDR and SIAC, acting as the appointing authorities.

Mr Thambiayah is a member of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, Vice-Chair of the Council of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, Chair of the Australasian Chapter of the ICC Institute, and is on the panel of arbitrators of ACICA, AIAC, AMTAC, APRAG, HKIAC, ICDR, MLAANZ, SIAC and SCMA.

HIROYUKI TEZUKA, MEMBER

Hiroyuki Tezuka is a partner at Nishimura & Asahi, and heads the firm’s international dispute resolution practice group. He specialises in international commercial litigation and arbitration. He has been involved in a number of international arbitrations as counsel, sole-arbitrator, co-arbitrator or chairman including before the ICC, JCAA, AAA-ICDR, VIAC, KCAB and SIAC.

Hiroyuki serves as an executive director of the Japan Association of Arbitrators, was a vice-chair of the Arbitration Committee of the IBA Legal Practice Division, and was a committee co-chair of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Committee at the IPBA. Since 2013, he has been a member of SIAC’s Court of Arbitration. From 2013 to 2016, he taught international arbitration at the University of Tokyo, School of Law as visiting professor. Since 2016, he has been a member of the ICC Institute of World Business Law, the ACICA council, the Seoul IDRC Advisory Board and a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb). Since 2018 he has been a Council member of the ICC Institute of World Business Law.

Hiroyuki graduated from the University of Tokyo (LL.B., 1984) and Harvard Law School (LL.M., 1992). He is admitted as an attorney in Japan (1986) and in New York (1993).

GUIDO TAWIL

GUIDO TAWIL, MEMBER

Prof. Dr. Guido Santiago Tawil has been an independent arbitrator since 2018. He was formerly the Senior Partner and Head of the International Arbitration, Administrative Law and Regulatory practices at M. & M. Bomchil (1993-2018) in Buenos Aires, and previously a Commissioner of Argentina´s Securities & Exchange Commission (1991-1993).

He was a Chair Professor of Administrative Law at the University of Buenos Aires School of Law and member of its Ph.D. and Awards Committees (1984-2019), and was awarded the University of Buenos Aires School of Law Award (1991) for the best doctoral dissertation in all areas of law. He has also received the “Alejandro E. Shaw Award” from the Buenos Aires Bar and the “Konex Award (2016) for his legal contributions.

His other accolades include being a founding member and the first President of the Latin American Arbitration Association (ALArb) (2011-2014), a Co-Chair of the IBA´s Arbitration Committee (2009-2010) and its Latin American Forum (2008), a member of the IBA´s LPD Council (2011-2014), a Governing Council Member of ICCA (2011-2019) and Co-Chair of its Initiatives Committee. He currently serves as member of ICCA’s Advisory Board, Co-chair of ICCA´s Task Force on Standards of Practice and member of its Nominations Committee, a member of the Foundation for International Arbitration Advocacy’s (FIAA) Board of Trustees, a Chair of SIAC’s Latin America Regional Committee and member of its Users Council Executive Committee (2017-2021).

In addition, he is a former Court member of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) (2008-2013) and current member of the LCIA Company, a member of the ICC´s Latin American Arbitration Group; a member of ITA´s Academic Council (2004-2013), a member of the Administrative Law Institute of Argentina National Law Academy and of the Argentine Chamber of Commerce (CAC) Advisory Committee.

Prof. Tawil received his law degree in 1983, an LL. M. in Administrative Law and Public Administration in 1986, and a Ph. D. in 1991, with the highest academic qualifications, all of them issued by the University of Buenos Aires School of Law.

THOMAS SNIDER, MEMBER

Thomas R. Snider is a Partner and the Head of International Arbitration at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP based in the firm’s Dubai office. He has represented corporate entities and sovereign states in a wide range of matters involving international arbitration and other forms of cross-border dispute resolution, including state-to-state arbitration, international commercial arbitration, international investment disputes, and U.S. court litigation.

Mr. Snider is recognised as a Global Elite Thought Leader in Who’s Who Legal Arbitration and is ranked for dispute resolution in Chambers United Arab Emirates. Among other roles, he is a member of Court of Arbitration of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the Board of Directors of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

Mr. Snider frequently speaks and writes on topics involving international law and dispute resolution.  Before relocating to Dubai, he was a Professorial Lecturer in Law at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Snider received his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame and his J.D. from Harvard Law School.

ABBY COHEN SMUTNY

ABBY COHEN SMUTNY, MEMBER

Abby Cohen Smutny is Global Head of White & Case’s international arbitration practice group. She is widely recognized as one of the world’s leading international arbitration practitioners and is an experienced arbitrator.

She has over 30 years’ experience representing both private as well as State parties in international commercial as well as treaty-based arbitrations relating to a wide range of industries including banking, financial services, oil & gas, mining, electric power, real estate development, water supply, retail, pharmaceuticals, construction, tobacco, railroads, telecommunications, and manufacturing. She has significant experience managing claims arising out of project financing, privatizations, natural resource concessions, contracts with States and State-entities, and political risk insurance.

Among other positions, she has served as Chair of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA), Vice-President of American Society of International Law, Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Committee of the IBA, Chair of the IBA’s Investment Treaty Sub-Committee, President of LCIA’s North American Users Council, Member of the Board of the American Arbitration Association, and Chair of the International Law Section of the Washington DC Bar.

MICHAEL E. SCHNEIDER

MICHAEL E SCHNEIDER, MEMBER

Michael E. Schneider is a founding partner of LALIVE, an international and independent law firm based in Switzerland and London (http://www.lalive.law). He has practised in international arbitration for more than 40 years as counsel in disputes involving States and corporations in construction, industrial engineering and infrastructure projects, state responsibility foreign investment and natural resources (in particular oil and gas), organising and leading teams of specialists from different fields and different legal and cultural backgrounds. The cases were subject to various domestic laws or international law and applied various rules, including those of the UNCITRAL, ICC, ICSID, LCIA, Swiss Rules, Stockholm Institute, the Cairo Regional Centre (CRCICA), Dubai (DIAC), European Development Fund and before other international bodies, including the WTO Appellate Body and the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC). He has also acted as arbitrator (sole, presiding or co-arbitrator) under the rules of many institutions.

Honorary President of the Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA). Past chairman of the UNCITRAL Working Group II (Arbitration) at its Sessions in New York and Vienna (2006-2010) on the revision of the Arbitration Rules and on the revision of the Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings (2014-2015) and Vice-chair of the Commission (2015-2017). Past Vice chair of the ICC Commission on Arbitration until 2014, and member of several of its working groups (1998 and 2012 revisions of the ICC Rules, Construction, Pre-arbitral Referee). Immediate past president of the International Academy of Construction Lawyers (IACL). Member of the Board of Trustees of the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA).

JOHN SAVAGE

JOHN SAVAGE KC, MEMBER

John Savage KC is a Partner in King & Spalding’s International Arbitration group based in the firm’s London and Singapore offices. He is member of the SIAC Court and was a Vice-President of the SIAC Court from 2013 to March 2018 and a Director of the SIAC from 2009 to 2017.

Mr Savage has more than 25 years’ experience representing governments and corporations in over 200 international arbitrations around the world. These include many corporate, construction, energy and investment treaty disputes, with an emphasis on the oil & gas and power sectors. Mr Savage has worked in Asia since 2001 and his experience extends across the Asia-Pacific region. In addition to his work as counsel, Mr Savage has been appointed chairman of the tribunal, sole arbitrator and co-arbitrator in more than 30 commercial and investment treaty arbitrations in Asia and beyond.

HARISH SALVE

HARISH SALVE KC, MEMBER

Mr Harish Salve is a KC practicing in London and a tenant of Blackstone Chambers.

He is also a Senior Advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India. Mr Salve is also a Registered Foreign Lawyer in the Singapore International Commercial Court.

He is a qualified Chartered Accountant who started work in taxation in 1978 and then shifted to law in 1980. He set up his independent chambers in 1986. He was designated a Senior Advocate in 1992. He held the office of the Solicitor General of India from 1999 until November 2001 being the youngest Solicitor General ever at the age of 42 years.

In 2013 he took tenancy in Blackstone Chambers after joining the UK Bar and becoming a member of the Grays Inn.

He has handled some of the most important cases decided by the Indian Supreme Court in the last two decades. Since 2013, he has been appearing in International Arbitrations, and in the Courts of England and Wales. He also has appeared in two cases in the International Court of Justice.

He has been active in the field of international arbitration both as counsel as well as an arbitrator. He has been appointed as an arbitrator in a number of arbitrations under the rules of the ICC, LCIA and the SIAC.

PHILIPPE PINSOLLE

PHILIPPE PINSOLLE, MEMBER

Philippe Pinsolle is a partner of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, he is heading international arbitration for continental Europe.  He is based in the firm’s Geneva Office.  Philippe Pinsolle has over twenty-five years of experience as counsel, expert and arbitrator in international arbitration with a particular focus in international commercial arbitration, investment treaty arbitration, disputes between sovereign states in such sectors as major infrastructures, energy and other capital intensive industries.  He has been involved in more than 300 arbitrations as counsel or arbitrator under the auspices of virtually all major arbitration institutions.  Among his many professional activities, Philippe Pinsolle is also Senior Vice-Chair of the IBA Arbitration Committee.

EUN YOUNG PARK, MEMBER

Dr Eun Young Park is an independent arbitrator who has served as serves as co-chair of Kim & Chang’s International Arbitration & Cross-Border Litigation Practice Group.

After serving as a judge in the Seoul District Court, Dr Park joined Kim & Chang where he has led the firm’s international arbitration and cross-border dispute practice. He specializes in international arbitration on various issues including commercial and investment disputes, regularly sits as an arbitrator.

Dr Park is a Member of the SIAC Court of Arbitration and has served as a Vice-President of the LCIA Court. He also acted as a Vice-Chair of the IBA Arbitration Committee and a founding Co-Chair of the IBA’s Asia-Pacific Arbitration Group. He received a J.S.D from the NYU School of Law and is admitted to the Korean bar and the New York bar.

SHANEEN PARIKH

SHANEEN PARIKH, MEMBER

Shaneen has over two decades of experience is a qualified to practice as an advocate and solicitor in India, and also qualified as a solicitor in England & Wales).

She focuses on arbitration (both domestic and international) having represented clients in disputes administered by various international arbitral institutions as also ad hoc arbitrations.

She is a Member of the SIAC Court of Arbitration and the LCIA Users Council.She also serves as an ambassador of Asia Pacific Arbitration Group of the International Bar Association.

Shaneen also handles commercial litigation in disputes relating to commercial contracts, shareholder issues, infrastructure, power and construction projects, financial and structured products, infrastructure, power and construction projects and white collar crime. She has also represented clients in various courts and tribunal across India, including the NCLT, High Courts and the Supreme Court of India.

Shaneen has been recommended by Who’s Who Legal as a Future Leader in arbitration and ranked as “Most Highly Regarded (Partner)” 2021 for Arbitration in the Asia-Pacific Region. She has also been ranked as a Notable Practitioner in Dispute Resolution by Asia Law, and was recognised as one of ALB India Top Disputes Lawyers. Shaneen is also ranked as a key lawyer for arbitration and litigation in The Legal 500, and by Chambers & Partners – Asia-Pacific – Dispute Resolution.

Shaneen is also actively involved in dispute resolution-related initiatives, as a speaker at multiple events and also as a published author.

SHANTI MOGAN

SHANTI MOGAN, MEMBER

Shanti Mogan has over 30 years of experience in a broad commercial practice, representing clients in commercial litigation and arbitration, both domestic and international. She acts both as counsel and arbitrator. She is head of the Arbitration Practice and Personal Data Protection & Privacy Law Practice and co-heads the Competition Law Practice. She is a Member of the Court of Arbitration (SIAC). She is a recognised and recommended dispute resolution lawyer (Chambers, Legal 500, Expert Guides, Who’s Who Legal, Asialaw).

Her experience covers a wide range range of disputes including banking, commercial, corporate, regulatory and technology related disputes.

She regularly acts for banks, regulatory bodies and corporations in relation to consumer protection, data protection and privacy, defamation, entertainment, multimedia and communications disputes.

Her arbitral experience is varied; the most recent of which involves large scale disputes relating to a cellular blocking system, an integrated complex in respect of the provision of chilled water and delays in the construction and operation of an airport. Other disputes involve the design, construction and commissioning of a steel plant, software development agreement for a regulatory body, disputes relating to a public automated enforcement system, design and construction contract, contract for the marketing of natural resources, pharmaceutical supplies to a government concessionaire, hotel management agreement, development of an integrated resort, warranty claims for a car tracking system.

Some significant Court matters relating to arbitration disputes include injunctions relating to cellular access network for an airport and the termination of a public service pending arbitration. Shanti also has experience in the area of competition and antitrust laws, and offers advisory services, compliance audits and legal representation in competition law investigations and disputes. Specific industries she has represented in her competition practice include the pharmaceutical, insurance, energy, travel, banking, automotive, entertainment and retail sectors.

Shanti advises on regulatory compliance and activities coming under the purview of various authorities including the Securities Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Communications and Multimedia Commission.

She is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators, a member of the LCIA and sits on various committees relating to the practice of arbitration including the Bar Council, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Malaysia and the Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

FERNANDO MANTILLA-SERRANO

FERNANDO MANTILLA-SERRANO, MEMBER

Fernando Mantilla-Serrano is a partner and global Co-chair of the International Arbitration Practice at Latham & Watkins. A graduate from the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogota, where he received his Law degree (JD) together with a major in Economics, Mr. Mantilla-Serrano has also received a MCJ (LLM) from New York University (Fulbright Scholar), a DEA in International Private Law and International Trade and a DSU in EU Law from the Université de Paris II. He is acclaimed for the depth of his knowledge and experience in international arbitration representing companies, states, and state-owned entities in highly complex commercial and investor-state disputes. Mr Mantilla-Serrano has acted as lead counsel in arbitrations conducted under the main institutional arbitration rules (ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SCC, ICDR), as well as ad hoc rules. His articles on arbitration have been published in Arbitration International, the French Revue de l’Arbitrage, the Journal of International Arbitration and the Spanish Revista de la Corte Española de Arbitraje. He is fluent in English, French, Portuguese and Spanish. He was one of a four-member commission created by the Spanish Minister of Justice to draft Spain’s new arbitration act (Law 60 of December 23, 2003). Mr Mantilla-Serrano is fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and member of the International Law Association (ILA). Mr Mantilla-Serrano is admitted to the bars of Colombia, New York (USA), Paris (France) and Madrid (Spain).

DARIUS J. KHAMBATA

DARIUS J. KHAMBATA, SC, MEMBER

Darius J. Khambata, Senior Counsel, LL.M. (Harvard), practises before the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and other High Courts and Tribunals across India.

He has held two distinguished public law offices, as Advocate General for Maharashtra and as Additional Solicitor General of India.

Mr Khambata has a large and varied practice and has appeared in several important constitutional, commercial, securities and administrative law matters and in significant domestic and international commercial arbitrations.

He was a member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Committee that framed new insider trading regulations and is currently a member of SEBI’s Takeover Panel. He was part of the Law Commission of India’s Committee that in 2015 recommended amendments to the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. He was a Vice-President of the LCIA and is a member of the SIAC Court. He sits on the Advisory Council to the Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai. He is a member of One Essex Court, London apart from having his own chambers in Mumbai.

TEJAS KARIA

TEJAS KARIA, MEMBER

Tejas Karia is Partner and Head of Arbitration practice at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. He specializes in International and Domestic Commercial Arbitrations across sectors. He has represented multinational and Indian corporations in ad hoc and institutional arbitrations involving major arbitration institutions. He was part of committee of Law Commission of India for recommending amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and of High-powered Committee for Institutionalization of Arbitration in India. He regularly appears as counsel before the Arbitration Tribunals, High Courts and Supreme Court of India as well as sits as an Arbitrator. He is a Fellow of CIArb and Director of CIArb-India. He is Director of Indian Arbitration Forum and Vice-Chairman of Society of Construction Law – India.

He is recognised as “Global Leader” by Who’s Who Legal, “Leading Lawyer in Dispute Resolution” by Asialaw Leading Lawyers, “Leading Individual” by Legal 500, ranked in Band – 2 for Arbitration by Chambers & Partners and “Litigation Star” by Benchmark Litigation. He is a member of Governing Council of Indian Law Society and ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. He served as member of task forces for Study of International Commercial Arbitration by Commonwealth Secretariat and for revision of IBA Rules on Taking Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration. He has co-authored a number of publications and extensively spoken on Arbitration and Mediation globally.

BENJAMIN HUGHES

PROF BENJAMIN HUGHES, MEMBER

Professor Benjamin Hughes is an independent arbitrator with the Arbitration Chambers in Singapore and Fountain Court Chambers in London. He has been appointed as arbitrator in over 150 international commercial arbitrations around the world and across a broad range of commercial sectors, with several billion dollars in dispute. He is recognized as a leading international commercial arbitrator in numerous legal publications, including Chambers and Partners and Who’s Who Legal.

Professor Hughes has taught extensively in the field of international dispute resolution and comparative law, including as adjunct professor at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law (2019-present), associate professor at Seoul National University Law School (2015-2019), and visiting professor at the law faculties of Hong Kong University and National Taiwan University, among others. He also serves on the editorial boards of the Asian International Arbitration Journal, the Korea Arbitration Review and the Journal of Korean Law.

Prior to commencing his practice as an independent arbitrator, Professor Hughes was the founding co-chair of the international dispute resolution practice group at Shin & Kim, one of Korea’s oldest and largest full-service law firms. Previously he practiced as counsel at Shearman and Sterling in the US and Singapore.

Professor Hughes was educated in both the civil law and the common law traditions, having studied first at Seoul National University College of Law (all coursework in Korean), and then at NYU School of Law. While at NYU, he spent one semester in Buenos Aires, Argentina (all coursework in Spanish). He also studied Chinese (Mandarin) and East Asian history at Harvard University.

ERI HERTIAWAN

ERI HERTIAWAN, MEMBER

Eri is the Co-Head of the Dispute Resolution Group at Assegaf Hamzah & Partners. With experience of almost 30 years, Eri is an arbitration specialist and a seasoned litigator with extensive experience in commercial disputes, alternative disputes resolution, aviation law, and shipping law.

Eri is the first and sole Indonesian lawyer appointed as member of SIAC Court of Arbitration. He is also one of only a few Indonesian lawyers to be appointed a member of both the SIAC Users Council and the SIAC panel of arbitrators. In addition, Eri is a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and a certified mediator with both the Indonesian National Mediation Centre and the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) in United Kingdom.

Leading international publications consistently recommended and ranked Eri for his expertise as a dispute resolution specialist. He won “Lawyer of the Year – Indonesia” from Benchmark Litigation Asia-Pacific Awards 2021, ranked in “Band 1” for Dispute Resolution by Chambers Asia Pacific 2021, ranked as “Elite Practitioner” for Dispute Resolution by Asialaw Leading Lawyers since 2020, and ranked as “Litigation Star” by Benchmark Litigation since 2018.

One interviewee notes that “he is very well connected in Indonesian legal and political circles,” while another source says that “there is nobody more experienced in arbitration than him.” (Chambers Asia Pacific 2021)

BERNARD HANOTIAU

BERNARD HANOTIAU, MEMBER

Prof. Bernard Hanotiau has been actively involved in international arbitration as party-appointed arbitrator, chairman, sole arbitrator, counsel and expert in all parts of the world, under the rules of all major arbitral institutions including the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, DIAC, HKIAC, SCC, AAA, Swiss Chambers, NAI, CRCICA, KCAB, PCA and in many ad hoc cases for the last 40 years.

Professor Hanotiau is Emeritus Professor of the University of Louvain (Belgium). He is a member of the ICCA Advisory Board and of the Council of the ICC Institute and a member of the ICC International Arbitration Commission. He is also a former Vice-President of the Institute of Transnational Arbitration (Dallas), of Cepani (Belgian Arbitration Center) and of the LCIA Court. He is also member of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, Vice-President of the Board of Trustees of the Dubai International Arbitration Center (DIAC) and a member of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre’s Advisory Board.

In March 2011, Professor Hanotiau received the GAR “Arbitrator of the Year” award. In April 2016, he also received the Who’s Who Legal “Lawyer of the Year” for Arbitration Award.

KARINA GOLDBERG

KARINA GOLDBERG, MEMBER

Karina Goldberg is partner of Ferro, Castro Neves, Daltro & Gomide (FCDG), a Brazilian boutique law firm with offices in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, with focus in commercial disputes, both in court litigation and arbitration.

Karina has distinguished herself in commercial dispute resolution, mainly domestic and international arbitration, including shareholders disputes, contractual and M&A disputes, infrastructure and construction disputes, security and investment cases.

Karina has obtained Master’s Degree (LLM) in European Private Law from Utrecht University, Holland, in 2003 and was educated at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, where she obtained her Bachelor’s degree in law in 2001.

Karina is currently a member of the ICC Commission on International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution and of the IBA Subcommittees on International Commercial Arbitration Case Law and Unidroit Principles.

JESSICA FEI

JESSICA FEI, MEMBER

Ms Jessica Fei is a widely recognized leading international arbitration and dispute resolution practitioner with over 25 years’ experience in international arbitration. She is global co-head of international arbitration practice of King & Wood Mallessons. Her practice focuses on large-scale international arbitration and cross-border litigation, for clients including Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private companies, multinationals and major regional corporates. Qualified in the New York State and China, Jessica is one of the very few leading international dispute resolution practitioners in China who can effectively handle cases in both English and Chinese languages as counsel and arbitrator, and has significant international background and experience as well as deep understanding of the Chinese corporate culture and law.

Jessica handles disputes relating to energy (oil & gas, power etc), infrastructure and construction, trade (international sale of goods), cross-border investment (e.g. Sino-foreign joint venture disputes), manufacturing, distribution, and intellectual property matters among others. She represents and assists clients in international arbitrations (including ICC, CIETAC, HKIAC, SIAC, SCC, LCIA, AAA/ICDR, CEAC and UNCITRAL) and litigation matters inside and outside China in both English and Chinese languages. She sits regularly as arbitrator in commercial cases, and is listed on the panel of arbitrators of SIAC, HKIAC, CIETAC, ICDR, AIAC, CRCICA, KCAB etc.

DMITRY DYAKIN

DMITRY DYAKIN, MEMBER

Dmitry B. Dyakin is an advocate, a Partner and Co-Head of Dispute Resolution practice at Rybalkin, Gortsunyan and Partners in Moscow.

Dmitry has vast experience resolving international commercial and investment disputes. He represents leading Russian and international companies operating in various industries in high-profile proceedings, with many of them becoming landmark precedent-setting cases for the Russian community of legal practitioners. He possesses wealth of experience in handling arbitrations both as a sole arbitrator or a member of an arbitral tribunal. He regularly takes part as an expert on Russian law in court and arbitration proceedings abroad.

Dmitry is a member of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, mandate 2021-2024. He is also a deputy head of the ICC Arbitration Commission in Russia and heads the Investment Arbitration Working Group of the Russian Arbitration Association (RAA). Dmitry is a member of the Russia/Eurasia Committee of the American Bar Association (ABA), the International Bar Association (IBA), the LCIA User’s Council, and the SIAC User’s Council. He is included in the list of arbitrators of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), the Tehran Regional Arbitration Centre (TRAC), is also a Member of the Panel of Arbitrators at The Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA) and he also added to the List of Practitioners on VIAC’s website.

In 2017, Dmitry was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Presidium of the Arbitration Centre at the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RUIE). He is included in the list of recommended arbitrators of the RUIE Arbitration Centre and currently is a member of the RUIE Management Board.

Dmitry holds an Honours Degree in Law from the Moscow State Social University (2000), a Master’s degree in Private Law (M.P.L.) from the Russian School of Private Law (2007), a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree from the New York University School of Law (USA) (2009), and the Executive MBA degree from the London Business School and the Columbia Business School (2013).

MINH DANG

K. MINH DANG, MEMBER

Minh Dang is the Senior Partner of YKVN and has 40 years of experience in international matters. Minh heads up YKVN’s international arbitration practice where he focuses on complex Vietnam related disputes, often partnering with major international firms and regional firms. His experience includes disputes in the areas of oil & gas taxation, oil & gas investment, outbound telecom investments, pharmaceutical manufacturing investments, real estate investments, insurance and construction projects.

Minh has been active in Vietnam for 25 years, since 1994. He led the legal team advising Vietnam in the London Club restructuring of Vietnam’s commercial debts that closed in 1998 with Vietnam’s maiden issuance of international bonds. He has also been advising Petrovietnam in international matters since the late 90’s. Minh has been individually recognized by leading professional publications as a “Vietnam expert” for many years.

Minh is fluent in English, French and Vietnamese.

CHAN LENG SUN, SC, MEMBER

Leng Sun was appointed a Senior Counsel of the Supreme Court of Singapore in 2011. He is a member of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Court of Arbitration He is the former Global Head of Arbitration of an international law firm and the Immediate Past President of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators (SIArb). He is the Deputy Chairman of the SGX Appeals Board.

Leng Sun is qualified in Malaysia, Singapore and England. He has a broad commercial practice that covers technical disputes, maritime law (including sea, air and land transportation), international trade, insurance and company law. Leng Sun has acted as counsel or sat as arbitrator in arbitrations seated in Singapore, Hong Kong SAR, China, Korea, Malaysia, London and USA under ad hoc and institutional rules such as SIAC, ICC, SCMA, LMAA, ICDR, CIETAC, HKIAC, AIAC and KCAB rules. He is a Chartered Arbitrator. He is a Chairperson of the arbitration panel jointly appointed by the EU and Korea under the protocol on cultural cooperation of the Korea-EU FTA. Leng Sun had also served as a legal officer of the United Nations Compensation Commission in Geneva.

Leng Sun is the author of the book, Singapore Law on Arbitral Awards and Co-Editor of Conflict of Laws in Arbitration.

Leng Sun is the Singapore country contributor to Tetley’s Marine Cargo Claims (4th Ed). He has contributed chapters for numerous treatises, such as The Role of Arbitration in Shipping Law, published by Oxford University Press (Goldby and Mistellis eds, 2016), The Developing World of Arbitration, published by Hart Publishing (Reyes and Gu eds, 2018) and ASEAN and the Belt and Road Initiative, published by Academy Publishing (Bitas ed, 2021).

LIJUN CAO

LIJUN CAO, MEMBER

Lijun Cao is licensed to practice law in China and the State of New York. He has extensive experience in international arbitration and commercial litigation and has represented clients in over 300 commercial arbitration cases. He also handles investment arbitration.

Lijun is a Member of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, a Member of the Advisory Committee of CRCICA, a Vice Chair of the Arbitration and ADR Committee of ICC China, and a Vice Chair of the Arbitration and Lawyer Mediation Committee of the All China Lawyers Association (ACLA). Lijun is also an experienced arbitrator. He sits on the panel of arbitrators of several arbitral institutions, including CIETAC, BAC, HKIAC, SIAC, AIAC, ICDR, WIPO, etc.

Lijun has received numerous awards and recognitions from legal media and directories. Since 2014, Chambers Global has continuously ranked Lijun as a “Band 1” international arbitration lawyer.

LAWRENCE BOO, MEMBER

Lawrence Boo is a pioneer in the development of Singapore arbitration. He served as the first Chief Executive Officer and Registrar of SIAC (1991-1996) and was recalled to serve SIAC from 2004 to 2009 as the Deputy Chairman. Boo is one of Singapore’s leading international arbitrators, having sat as arbitrator in more than 300 cases and written numerous awards. His cases included those administered by the AAA, ICC, ICSID, CIETAC, SIAC, LCIA, KLRCA, BANI, HKIAC and ad hoc arbitrations. He is designated by Singapore to the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators (Dec 2013-Dec 2019).

Boo leads the teaching of international commercial arbitration at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore since 1994. He also teaches at Bond University, Australia. He is the author of “Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore Volume 1(2) – Arbitration” (Lexis-Nexis 1998, 2003 Re-issue, 2011 Re-issue, 2017 Re-issue) and one of the co-authors of UNCITRAL Digest on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (UN July 2012).

For his contribution to the development of international arbitration and mediation, Boo was conferred the honour of Bintang Bakti Masyarakat (BBM)(The Public Service Star) in August 2009 by the President of Singapore.

NIGEL BLACKABY

NIGEL BLACKABY KC, MEMBER

Nigel Blackaby QC is a partner of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Washington DC and global head of the firm’s international arbitration group. He has acted as counsel and arbitrator in over 100 ad hoc and institutional arbitrations (including over 40 investment arbitrations for investors and states). He has particular expertise in Latin America and energy and mining disputes. Recent cases include:

• Burlington Resources, Inc. v Ecuador (ICSID);
• Repsol v Argentina (ICSID);
• Pan American Energy v Bolivia (ICSID);
• Total, CMS, Suez, BG Group, Aguas de Barcelona and National Grid (among others) v Argentina;
• Crystallex International Corporation v Venezuela (ICSID Additional Facility)
• Tenaris and Talta v Venezuela

Nigel is a former president of the IBA Subcommittee on Investment Arbitration, an editor since 1995 of Arbitration International, co-author of Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (6th edition, Oxford, 2015), Guide to ICSID Arbitration (2nd edition, Kluwer, 2010) and International Arbitration in Latin America (Kluwer, 2003). He is an adjunct professor of international arbitration at American University Washington College of Law.

He is a graduate of the University of Exeter (UK) and the Université d’Aix-Marseille III (France) and has conducted arbitrations in English, Spanish, Portuguese and French.

PIERRE BIENVENU

PIERRE BIENVENU, MEMBER

Pierre Bienvenu, Ad. E. is a disputes lawyer with more than 35 years’ experience practising in international commercial arbitration, commercial litigation, and constitutional law. He has acted as counsel or served as arbitrator in international arbitrations involving disputes in telecommunications, transportation, energy, international distribution and joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, construction, pharmaceuticals, and foreign investment.

A former co-chair of the IBA’s Arbitration Committee (2008-2009), he has served on the LCIA Court (2010-2015), of which he was a vice-president (2011-2015), and the ICC International Court of Arbitration (2015-2021). He was appointed by the Government of Canada to ICSID’s Panel of Arbitrators in 2021 for a six-year term. Mr Bienvenu has pleaded before the courts of Quebec, the Federal Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada. He was involved in numerous challenges to the constitutional validity of provincial and federal legislation and has extensive experience in public law litigation. He has participated in more than 15 appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada, representing government bodies, institutions, corporations, and individuals in a range of international, constitutional, and commercial law disputes, including representing the Attorney General of Canada in the landmark Reference re Secession of Quebec.

Mr. Bienvenu practiced for more than 35 years at Norton Rose Fulbright Canada (previously Ogilvy Renault LLP) and served as global co-head of Norton Rose Fulbright’s international arbitration practice from 2011 to 2022. He withdrew from the partnership of Norton Rose Fulbright in June 2022 to focus on his practice as an international arbitrator and joined IMK LLP, a Montreal-based disputes firm, in July 2022. He is also a member of the roster of arbitrators of Arbitration Place, in Toronto. Mr Bienvenu is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

He was awarded the distinction Advocatus Emeritus by the Quebec Bar in 2008, and the Paul-André Crépeau Medal by the Canadian Bar Association in 2013 for his contribution to the advancement of the international dimension of private law and commercial law in Canada.

YAS BANIFATEMI

YAS BANIFATEMI, MEMBER

Ms Yas Banifatemi is a founding partner of Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Disputes. Prior to founding Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Disputes, she served as Shearman & Sterling’s Global International Arbitration Practice Group Leader, Public International Law Team Leader and Lead Industry Coordinator for Energy. She is a former Vice-President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, a former member of the LCIA Court and a member of the ICSID panel of arbitrators.

She represents States, State entities and companies in international arbitration cases under the ICSID, UNCITRAL, ICC, LCIA, SCC, CRCICA, HKIAC, DIS and Swiss Arbitration Rules, with particular focus on international investment and energy disputes. She also advises States, State entities and corporations on a variety of public international law issues, such as the law of treaties, State responsibility, State contracts, immunity of States and other.

Yas Banifatemi has served as Chair and arbitrator in numerous commercial and investor-State arbitrations, including international arbitration proceedings under the Rules of the ICC, ICSID, SCC, LCIA, CRCICA, SIAC, HKIAC and the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, as well as in ad hoc proceedings.

A Visiting Lecturer in Law at Yale and Harvard Law Schools, Yas Banifatemi also teaches International Investment Law at Panthéon-Sorbonne University. She has written extensively on international arbitration and public international law issues.

JOHN P. BANG

JOHN P. BANG, MEMBER

Mr John P Bang is a senior partner (foreign attorney) at Peter & Kim, a specialized law firm in international arbitration. He was previously the head and co-founder of the International Arbitration and Cross-Border Litigation Practice at Bae, Kim & Lee LLC.

Over the past 20 years, he has represented parties in over 250 domestic and international arbitral proceedings seated in Asia, Europe and North America, ranging from multi-million to multi-billion dollar disputes. He has also served as sole arbitrator, co-arbitrator and chair in arbitral disputes under various arbitral institutions.

John is recognised as a leading arbitration practitioner in industry rankings such as Who’s Who Legal, Chambers Asia and Asialaw Leading Lawyers. In 2016, he was Asialaw’s “Disputes Star of the Year” for South Korea, and in 2018, Who’s Who Legal listed him as a Thought Leader in international arbitration. In April 2018, he received a Special Commendation from the Minister of Justice of Korea for his contribution to the development of arbitration in Korea. Chambers & Partners quotes a client as praising him for his “most-effective advocacy, comprehensive understanding of Korean disputes and dedication to detail”.

John is presently a member of the Executive Committee of the Korea Council for International Arbitration and a senior officer in the IBA Litigation Committee. Previously, he was a member of the drafting committee for the ICCA Sourcebook for Logistical Matters in Procedural Orders. He also served as Federal Law Clerk to the Honorable Kathryn C. Ferguson, USBJ, New Jersey.

DR CLAUDIA ANNACKER, MEMBER

Dr. Claudia Annacker is an independent arbitrator and counsel based in Paris.  She specializes in international arbitration and public international law, in particular investor-State disputes, inter-State disputes, disputes involving international organizations and human rights disputes.

Dr. Annacker has represented sovereign and private parties in more than 35 investment arbitrations, as well as in commercial and inter-State arbitrations.  Dr. Annacker has also served as arbitrator in investment treaty and commercial arbitrations.  She is a member of several arbitrator panels, including the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators and the SIAC Panel of Arbitrators.  She is a member of the SIAC Court of Arbitration and the VIAC Board (President of the Investment Arbitration Committee).

Dr. Annacker received a Ph.D. with high honors and a venia legendi et docendi (habilitation) for public international law from the University of Vienna.  Dr. Annacker is an adjunct professor at the University of Vienna and has been a visiting professor at the Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense University.  She has published widely in the fields of international arbitration and public international law.

CATHERINE AMIRFAR

CATHERINE AMIRFAR, MEMBER

Catherine Amirfar is a litigation partner at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP. She co-chairs the firm’s International Dispute Resolution Group and Public International Law Group.

Her practice focuses on public international law, international commercial and treaty arbitration, and international and complex commercial litigation. She is also a member of the firm’s Management Committee.

Ms Amirfar has been ranked among the leading international arbitration practitioners by Chambers Global, which has described her as “very composed, intelligent and a master of investment arbitration.”

Prior to rejoining Debevoise in 2016, Ms Amirfar spent two years as the Counselor on International Law to the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State. During her tenure as Counselor, Ms. Amirfar advised the State Department on its most significant litigation matters involving international law and foreign relations. She received the Superior Honor Award for her service to the Department.

Ms Amirfar serves as the President of the American Society of International Law and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Law Institute, and the Advisory Committee on International Law for the U.S. Department of State. She has written extensively on international arbitration, the relationship between international law and U.S. domestic law, international human rights and humanitarian law, investor-state disputes, and the law of consular and diplomatic immunities.

JOSE AMADO

JOSE AMADO, MEMBER

Mr. Jose Daniel Amado is a founding partner of Miranda & Amado in Lima and teaches international arbitration law at the Catholic University of Peru. His professional practice focuses on Corporate Law, Infrastructure Projects and International Arbitration. He has acted in some of the most important cross-border transactions and international disputes that have taken place in Peru in the last two decades.

Mr. Amado is regularly ranked as an international arbitration and corporate law expert by publications such as Who’sWhoLegal, GAR100, Chambers, Legal500, Best Lawyers and IFLR1000 and, in 2009, was named “Latin American Law Firm Leader of the Year” by LatinLawyer magazine. Mr. Amado regularly acts as party counsel, arbitrator and expert witness in domestic and international arbitrations.

From 2001 to 2002, Mr. Amado was Deputy to the Prime Minister of Peru and Chief of Advisors to the Council of Ministers. From 2013 to 2014, Mr. Amado was a Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge’s Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, as well as Scholar-in-Residence at Wilmer Hale’s international arbitration group. From 2014 to 2016, Mr. Amado was a Member of the Arbitration Court of the Lima Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Amado is the Chair of the Court of Arbitration of AmCham Peru´s International Arbitration Centre. He is also a Member of the ICC Arbitration Commission, of SIAC´s Users Council and of the Award Scrutiny Commission of CIAM (Madrid). Mr. Amado is further the Website Officer of the IBA Arbitration Committee and a Member of the Board of Advisors of Delos Dispute Resolution.

Mr. Amado received his LL.B. degree summa cum laude from the Catholic University of Peru and he holds an LL.M. from Harvard University, where he was awarded the Laylin Prize of Public International Law.

Mr. Amado is the author or co-author of several articles, essays and publications including a book titled “Arbitrating the Conduct of International Investors” (Cambridge University Press, 2018).

OLUFUNKE ADEKOYA

OLUFUNKE ADEKOYA, MEMBER

Funke Adekoya is a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and partner and head of the arbitration practice at ǼLEX, a Lagos Nigeria based law firm with offices in Accra, Ghana. She has dual nationality (Nigerian/British) and is dual qualified; in addition to having qualified as a legal practitioner in Nigeria in 1975, she was admitted as a solicitor in England and Wales in 2004 where she maintains a current practicing licence. She is a Chartered Arbitrator of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and a Governing Board Member of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration.

In addition to being appointed as counsel in arbitration related litigation, she also represents parties as counsel or arbitrator in commercial arbitrations. Her appointments have been both ad-hoc and institutional under the LCIA, ICC and ICSID Rules, where she has acted as either sole or party-appointed arbitrator or chaired arbitral panels in disputes in the commercial, energy and natural resources, construction and infrastructure sectors.

She is ranked in Chambers Global and in Who’s Who Legal Arbitration, is listed on the Chairman’s Panel of Arbitrators at ICSID as well as the panels of many other international arbitration institutions, and is currently a member of the ICC Africa Commission.

TOBY LANDAU KC, VICE PRESIDENT

Toby Landau KC is a barrister and arbitrator, and a member of the Bars of England & Wales, Singapore, New York, BVI and Northern Ireland (and the DIFC). He practices from Duxton Hill Chambers in Singapore, and as a Sole Practitioner in London.

As Arbitrator, he has sat as President and Co-Arbitrator in numerous Investor-State and commercial disputes worldwide, under most of the leading institutional and ad hoc rules. As Counsel, he has argued hundreds of major international investor-State and commercial arbitrations, as well as many ground-breaking arbitration cases in Court (including Halliburton v Chubb; Enka v Chubb; Dallah v Pakistan; Jivraj v Hashwani; Ust-Kamenogorsk v AES; IPCO v NNPC in the UK Supreme Court, and First Media v Astro in the Courts of Singapore and Hong Kong).

He is Visiting Professor at Kings College London; a Court Member of SIAC; previously LCIA Court Member and SCC Board Member; UK delegate to the UNCITRAL Working Group on Arbitration (1994-2013); and a draftsman of the English Arbitration Act 1996 as well as many other laws and arbitration rules in several countries. Since April 2012, he has been a member of the Panel of Advisors of the Attorney-General of Singapore.

CAVINDER BULL

CAVINDER BULL, SC, VICE PRESIDENT

Mr Cavinder Bull, SC is a Vice-President of the Court of Arbitration and the Chief Executive Officer of Drew & Napier LLC. He is also a member of the Governing Board of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) and Vice-President of the Asia Pacific Regional Arbitration Group. He was Deputy Chairman of the SIAC from October 2010 to April 2017.

Mr Bull has an active practice in complex litigation and international arbitration. He has acted as counsel in numerous international arbitrations and has represented governments, financial institutions and corporations from various parts of the world. He is also experienced in investor-state disputes, where he has acted as both counsel and arbitrator. Legal 500 praised him as a “very astute lawyer on strategy and law” while Chambers & Partners describes him as a “consummate advocate”; a “very rare talent in disputes”; and says that “complex arbitrations are his specialisation”.

Mr Bull is on the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators and has been appointed as an arbitrator in ICSID, PCA, NAFTA, ICC, SIAC, LCIA, UNCITRAL and ad hoc arbitrations.

Mr Bull graduated with First Class Honours in law from Oxford University and has a Masters in law from Harvard Law School. He has been called to the Bar in Singapore, New York and England & Wales. He was appointed Senior Counsel in 2008.

DUONG HOANG, DEPUTY COUNSEL

Duong is qualified to practice law in Vietnam.

Prior to joining SIAC, Duong worked as a counsel at a leading international arbitration centre in Vietnam where she administered domestic and international arbitration matters conducted under the auspice of the arbitration law of Vietnam and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. She thereafter practiced international arbitration with the Singapore office of a leading Vietnam-based law firm where she focused on Vietnam-related matters in construction and petroleum sectors. 

Duong speaks Vietnamese and English.

Email: duonghoang@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

CHEN WU

CHEN WU, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

Chen graduated from Fudan University (Bachelor’s degree in law), Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (LL.M. in International Trade Law) and Georgetown University (LL.M. in International Business and Economic Law).

Prior to joining SIAC, Chen worked as legal officer at the Court of Justice of the European Union, and practiced WTO dispute settlement and trade remedy investigation at law firms in Brussels and Beijing.

Chen is qualified to practice law in China and New York State. She speaks Chinese (Mandarin and Shanghainese), English and French.

Email: chenwu@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

JAYDEN ZHAO

JAYDEN ZHAO, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

Jayden graduated with an LL.B. (Hons) from the Singapore Management University School of Law. He is admitted to practice as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Prior to joining SIAC, he practiced arbitration and litigation at a law firm in Singapore.

Jayden is fluent in English and Mandarin.

Email: jaydenzhao@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

LYNNETTE LEE, COUNSEL

Lynnette graduated with an LL.B. (Hons) from Monash Law School, Melbourne, Australia and holds a Bachelor of Communication Studies (Hons) from the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. She is admitted to practice as an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. During law school, Lynnette participated in moot court competitions, which included representing Monash at the FDI Moot.

Prior to joining SIAC, Lynnette practiced with Singapore law firms and worked at the chambers of a leading international arbitrator. She also worked with the Legal Aid Bureau in Singapore as a legal executive.

Email: lynnettelee@siac-staging.cloudwps.net

DAVINDER SINGH

DAVINDER SINGH, SC, CHAIRMAN

Mr Davinder Singh, SC is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of SIAC and the Executive Chairman of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC.

Mr Singh’s legal experience spans four decades. He has an active international arbitration practice involving complex commercial disputes, international clients and multiple jurisdictions. He has advised and/or acted in numerous institutional and ad hoc arbitrations.

At the Chambers Asia-Pacific Awards 2014, Mr Singh was conferred the “Outstanding Contribution to the Legal Profession” Award. He is the only litigator in Singapore to be ranked by Chambers & Partners as a “Star Individual” for thirteen years running from 2011 to 2023.

Mr Singh is also recognised in the “Hall of Fame” for both Dispute Resolution and International Arbitration by The Legal 500 Asia Pacific.

According to Chambers and Legal 500 researchers, Mr Singh is “number one in Singapore”; “a bona fide star performer”; “in a class of his own” and a “standout figure in arbitration as well as litigation; “an exceptionally good lawyer – always top of the tree.”

Mr Singh also sits on the Board of Directors of the Singapore International Mediation Centre.

He was in the first batch of Senior Counsel appointed by the Singapore Supreme Court in 1997.