Official website links end with .gov.sg
A Singapore Government Agency Website
Secure websites use HTTPS
Chief Justice Sundaresh: Opening address at the Singapore International Commercial Court Conference 2025
Singapore International Commercial Court Conference 2025
Opening Address
"The Emerging Architecture of Transnational Commercial Justice"
Tuesday, 14 January 2025
The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon*
Supreme Court of Singapore
The Honourable Chief Justice Dato Steven Chong, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Brunei Darussalam,
The Honourable Justice I Gusti Agung Sumanatha, Chairman of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Indonesia,
The Honourable Justice Syamsul Maarif, Chairman of the Development Chamber of the Supreme Court of Indonesia,
The Honourable Justice Tan Sri Datuk Nallini Pathmanathan, Judge of the Federal Court of Malaysia,
The Honourable Justice Alfredo Benjamin Sabater Caguioa, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines,
The Honourable Professor Jan Paulsson, Judge of the Bahrain Court of Cassation and President of the Bahrain International Commercial Court,
Judges and court officials from foreign judiciaries,
My fellow judges and colleagues from the Singapore judiciary,
Distinguished guests,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I. Introduction
1. A very good morning, and to our friends and colleagues from abroad, a very warm welcome to Singapore. I am delighted to see all of you at this year’s SICC Conference, as we gather to celebrate and reflect on a special milestone – the 10th anniversary of the SICC.
2. In the previous years, we organised the SICC Conference as an annual closed-door event that brought together our local and International Judges, along with external speakers from academia and practice. I think I speak for my colleagues when I say that this conference has been a highlight of our calendar, because it gives us a unique opportunity to discuss topical and pressing issues affecting not just the SICC, but also the broader transnational system of commercial justice that we operate in.(1)
3. This year, to commemorate the SICC’s 10th anniversary, we decided to open the conference to the broader legal community, and we hope you will find these frank and constructive discussions to be as rewarding as we have found them to be over the years. We are deeply grateful to the Singapore Academy of Law (or “SAL”) for working with us to put together an excellent programme, featuring a superb line-up of speakers, panellists and moderators. We are also particularly honoured to have, as you heard, two special speakers at this year’s conference – our Guest of Honour, Senior Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong, who will address us at tonight’s dinner; and the Minister for Law and Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam SC, who will participate in a fireside chat this afternoon.
4. Over the past decade, I have on a number of occasions highlighted the notable features of the SICC that distinguish it from our domestic courts. These features include its international bench comprising some of the most eminent and experienced commercial jurists from both common law and civil law jurisdictions; its bespoke set of procedural rules tailored to the resolution of international commercial disputes;(2) and the much more open approach we take to foreign legal representation in the SICC.(3) All of this has contributed to the growing popularity of the SICC as a trusted and neutral forum able to resolve transnational disputes effectively and efficiently, including many without any substantial connection to Singapore.(4) As you just heard from Justice Jeyaretnam, in a recent survey conducted by the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (or “SIDRA”) and published last year, the SICC emerged as the most commonly used international commercial court (or “ICC”), favoured by 75% of the respondents.(5) And this result is consistent with the previous edition of the survey published in 2022,(6) where the SICC was selected by 80% of the respondents.
5. But the architecture of transnational commercial justice is rapidly evolving, and we must ensure that our systems, procedures and processes continue to be aligned with the needs and realities of international commerce. This is the theme I propose to explore today, and I do so in two broad parts:
(a) First, I will outline some key trends that should inform the way we think about commercial disputes today.
(b) Second, in the light of these trends, I will then, with reference to the SICC, explore three areas which I suggest are of increasing importance to commercial parties when they seek to resolve their disputes:
i. The first is the need for cost-effective proceedings that are conducted expeditiously and proportionately, but also coupled with a costs regime that allows the successful party to recover virtually all its reasonable costs.
ii. The second is the presence of a mechanism to correct errors.
iii. And the third is the willingness to embrace new procedures, processes and laws – regardless of their origins – so that we can continue to serve our users to the best of our ability.
II. Key trends that should inform the way we think about commercial disputes
A. Internationalisation of commercial disputes
6. Let me then outline some key trends, the first of which is the growing internationalisation of commercial disputes. We see this in many ways – the profile of the parties; the factual narratives of the cases we deal with; the questions of foreign law that we have to resolve; and the growing trend of litigants who attempt to reopen and relitigate issues in multiple forums across the globe. This is a phenomenon which I have described as transnational relitigation.(7)
7. To be clear, the internationalisation of commercial disputes has long followed the advance of globalisation and cross-border commerce. But looking ahead, we will likely see a greater diversity of disputes with multi-jurisdictional elements, resulting in courts having to grapple with the substantive laws and procedural rules of a wider variety of legal systems from all across the world. This is because we are shifting from a unipolar world to a multipolar one,(8) with countries and businesses starting to reconfigure and diversify their trade and supply chains in order to manage their risks. This trend is likely to intensify, and it will have implications on the types of disputes we see.(9)
8. It is precisely in times of such change that ICCs like the SICC play a crucial role in facilitating transnational commerce – by serving as strong, neutral and trusted institutions that can be relied on to dispense justice swiftly, efficiently and predictably.(10) Further, perhaps because of their international character, decisions of ICCs tend to be influential in the development of the law in other jurisdictions. This, in turn, helps promote the development of a coherent and sophisticated body of commercial laws and practices,(11) and more generally, a robust rules-based international legal order. Let me acknowledge our first panel session moderated by Justice Jeyaretnam later this morning, where we will delve deeper into the role and value proposition of ICCs.
B. Complexification of commercial disputes
9. This brings me to the second main trend affecting commercial disputes – the complexification of these disputes. By this, I refer to the phenomenon of disputes becoming ever more evidentially and technically complex, such that they threaten to exceed the ability of adjudicators to comprehend the material before them, and thus potentially making them more prone to error.(12) This challenge has to a significant extent been caused and then exacerbated by technological advancements.(13) To begin with, advances in digital technology have dramatically expanded the volume of data and information that can be created and stored, and then produced as evidence when disputes arise. And scientific progress has also resulted in entirely new and sophisticated domains of knowledge – such as generative artificial intelligence, self-executing contracts and algorithmic trading – and these will require adjudicators, at the very least, to acquire a working understanding of the relevant technical concepts and domains when they encounter disputes in these areas. We will explore some of these new innovations and technologies in greater detail tomorrow, both in the keynote address that will be delivered by Assistant Professor Dirk Hartung and in the panel session moderated by Justice Anselmo Reyes.
10. We see a notable example of the growing complexity of commercial disputes in Quoine v B2C2 – a dispute concerning cryptocurrency trading that was heard by the SICC at first instance and later by the Court of Appeal.(14) In very brief terms, B2C2 traded cryptocurrency over Quoine’s trading platform through an algorithmic trading software that was designed to function continuously with minimal human intervention. Due to some oversight on Quoine’s part, an automated series of events led to B2C2 selling its cryptocurrency at a rate that was approximately 250 times the prevailing market rate, resulting in B2C2 reaping a significant windfall. When Quoine realised this, it unilaterally cancelled and reversed the transactions. B2C2 in turn sued Quoine for breach of contract and breach of trust, and it was in that rather novel context that we had to consider how established legal doctrines, like the doctrine of unilateral mistake, ought to apply.
11. While Quoine might have been a case of a somewhat higher order of complexity, it is fair to say that the average commercial dispute today is much more complex than it was in the past. And this has two significant implications for the resolution of these disputes.
(a) First, disputes have become more expensive, protracted and resource-intensive. There is therefore a pressing need for us to think of new and innovative tools and methods to manage and if necessary, downsize, these disputes. This is a point that will be picked up in greater detail in the panel session later this afternoon moderated by Justice Vivian Ramsey, where we will explore some of the innovations pioneered by the SICC.
(b) And second, complexification threatens the quality of adjudicative decisions, because there is inevitably a finite limit to how much information any human can process. This points to the need for measures to reduce the risk of errors, or to correct them when they arise – such as by expanding the number of adjudicators for particularly complex cases, or by ensuring that there is a robust appellate mechanism that is available.
C. High-stakes commercial disputes
12. I turn to the final trend I will mention briefly today, and that is the exponential growth of high-stakes commercial disputes. In other words, apart from disputes becoming more internationalised and complex, they have also increased in scale. Indeed, it is not uncommon for claims in the SICC to be for very large sums. Even our very first case – PT Bayan – involved a dispute between two publicly listed groups from Australia and Indonesia, with a claim exceeding S$1 billion.(15)
13. With such high stakes involved in transnational dispute resolution, it is perhaps unsurprising that the provision of dispute resolution services has become more of a business enterprise. We see this not only in the large teams of lawyers that are typically mobilised for each case, but also in the rapid growth of the litigation funding industry over the last decade. In 2013, the New York Times described litigation financing as a fringe industry in “an obscure corner of Wall Street”,(16) but it has since grown into an industry valued at US$15.2 billion in the US, a significant increase from US$9.5 billion just six years ago.(17) We also see this trend in other major dispute resolution centres, including Singapore.(18) High-value claims are increasingly treated as assets that may even be traded, with extensive due diligence said to be conducted on factors such as the merits of the claim, the state of the law in the relevant jurisdiction, the expected duration of the case and even the “quality” of the lawyers and judges in the case.(19) And while third-party funding is generally prohibited in Singapore, it is permissible in SICC and other prescribed proceedings.(20) These therefore are some of the commercial realities we should bear in mind as we design our processes, procedures and schemes, including our costs recovery regime.
III. The SICC in the emerging architecture of transnational commercial justice
14. I turn then to the second part of my address. Here, I will explore the three areas that I earlier outlined, which seek to ensure that the disputes we find in the emerging architecture of transnational commercial justice, can be resolved effectively and efficiently. In particular, I will focus on how the SICC delivers on each of these key priority areas – first, costs; second, a mechanism for error-correction; and third, an overarching philosophy of embracing new procedures, processes and laws to ensure we are serving our users in the best and most appropriate way.
A. Costs in the SICC
15. I begin with costs. We all know just how important this is to commercial parties. Notably, in the 2024 SIDRA survey that I mentioned earlier, the issue of costs was rated by respondents as being of high importance, both in litigation and in arbitration.(21) I suggest there are two principal aspects to this:
(a) The first relates to the applicable costs recovery regime. This must not only be attuned to the expectations of commercial parties, but the relevant principles must also be applied consistently in each case.
(b) And beyond this, proceedings must also be conducted in a manner that is cost-effective, by which I mean they must be managed and disposed of efficiently, expeditiously and proportionately, in order to prevent costs from escalating unreasonably.
16. Let me explain on what we have done in each of these aspects in the SICC.
i. Costs recovery regime
17. The applicable costs regime in the SICC is set out in Order 22 rule 3(1) of the SICC Rules, which provides that a successful party is entitled to costs, and the quantum of any costs award will generally reflect the costs incurred by the successful party, subject to the limits of proportionality and reasonableness. Order 22 rule 3(2) then provides a non-exhaustive list of factors that the court may consider in assessing proportionality and reasonableness, including the complexity of the case, the amount or value of the claim, and the conduct of the parties.
18. As explained by the Court of Appeal in the Senda case,(22) this approach to costs is distinct from that applied in the General Division of the High Court (or “General Division”), which hears the bulk of the disputes determined in the Supreme Court. In the General Division, cases cover a wide range of areas, including as motor accident and personal injury claims, contractual disputes, professional negligence actions and judicial review proceedings. In such circumstances, if successful parties stood to recover the costs they had incurred to the fullest extent, it could potentially undermine access to justice, because such a regime might deter litigants who did not have very deep pockets from pursuing or defending their rights unless they were very convinced of their merits, for fear of incurring an unbearable liability for costs in the event they were unsuccessful. Thus, to enhance access to justice, the costs awarded in the General Division are generally arrived at by applying an objective standard to determine the level of recoverable costs, and this is done principally by reference to precedents and the guidelines set out in Appendix G of the Practice Directions.(23)
19. This is less relevant in the SICC with its focus on international commercial disputes, which bring with them the characteristics that I earlier described. The parties who appear before the SICC are generally well-resourced and hence able, and also willing, to incur greater expense in litigation, especially when there are high stakes involved; and they may also be able to draw on the support of litigation funders. We therefore held in Senda that the principal underlying consideration of the costs regime in the SICC is the commercial one of ensuring that a successful litigant is not unfairly put out of pocket for sensibly prosecuting its claim or mounting its defence.(24) Instead of the objective inquiry that is applied in the General Division, the starting point in the SICC is a subjective inquiry into the costs that have actually been incurred by the successful party, with the important qualification that costs are recoverable to the extent they are incurred reasonably and proportionately.(25)
20. Such an approach to costs is surely aligned with the expectations of commercial parties. It encourages the parties to be disciplined and proportionate in the conduct of their proceedings and it disincentivises abusive or dilatory tactics. At the same time, it ensures that the successful party will generally recover substantially all its costs, with costs recovery undoubtedly being one of the foremost considerations when the parties decide whether to pursue litigation.
21. Furthermore, because the costs regime in the SICC is set out clearly in the SICC Rules, and has also been the subject of judicial pronouncement by our highest court in Senda, there is certainty and predictability over how our judges will consider and resolve questions of costs. Most recently, just last year, we also published a Guide to the Assessment of Costs in the SICC, which may be found on our website.(26) This provides an overview of the applicable principles, and includes a compendium of costs awards made in previous SICC cases, so as to promote transparency and help our users better understand the SICC costs regime.
ii. Cost-effective proceedings
22. Apart from our costs recovery regime, we have also designed our procedures and processes to promote cost-effective proceedings. In particular, there are specific tools to reduce costs such as the Technology, Infrastructure and Construction List (or “TIC List”), which is a specialised list for technically complex disputes. When a case is placed on the TIC List, it will benefit from several procedural innovations that are intended to downsize or contain the dispute. For example, the parties can opt for the Simplified Adjudication Process Protocol which is particularly helpful to manage disputes containing tens or even hundreds of similar claims, as can often be the case in building and construction disputes. The parties can also agree to have claims of lower value decided according to a simplified process based mainly on agreed documents and written submissions in tabular form, or even have them resolved according to an agreed formula based on the proportion of recovery that is achieved with the higher value claims.(27)
23. We will explore the TIC List and other specific innovations in Panel Session 2. For now, I would like to focus on several general measures we have taken to ensure that proceedings are cost-effective.
24. The first is our system of close, early and continuous judge-led case management, which has become a feature of litigation in the SICC. In every SICC case, the panel is assigned shortly after the matter is filed, and the judges preside over Case Management Conferences (or “CMCs”) which are generally convened at the commencement of proceedings and then regularly throughout the lifespan of the case. At CMCs, judges make orders and give directions that are contextualised to the particular dispute before them and the needs and circumstances of the parties. In order to ensure the just, expeditious and economic disposal of the case judges can consider cost estimates or budgets which the parties are required to provide shortly after the commencement of proceedings,(28) and they may direct them to be updated as the case progresses.
25. Second, cases in the SICC are closely tracked and monitored to ensure that they are dealt with expeditiously – from the time they are filed until they are disposed of. This is critical because generally, the longer the duration of the proceedings, the more costly it will be for the parties. To help in this regard, we typically assign two registrars to each SICC matter, to assist the bench with case management. They, in turn, are supported by a dedicated team of case officers in the SICC Registry, all of whom devote care and attention to their cases. We also deal with certain categories of cases that are typically more time-sensitive on an expedited basis. As Justice Jeyaretnam mentioned just now, in relation to challenges to an arbitration award for example, the parties can typically expect a judgment at first instance to be delivered within six months of filing, and if an appeal is filed, that too will usually be resolved within six months of the filing of the appeal.(29)
26. And finally, the SICC has collaborated with other institutions within our dispute resolution ecosystem to allow the parties to explore alternatives to litigation where that may prove to be more cost-effective. For instance, together with the Singapore International Mediation Centre (or “SIMC”), we launched a Litigation-Mediation-Litigation Protocol (or “LML Protocol”). This allows the parties who commence proceedings in the SICC to have them stayed for a period of time, so that the matter can be referred for mediation at the SIMC. The resulting settlement agreement may be recorded as an order of court by the SICC, which may then proceed to deal with any unresolved claims.(30) And with the Singapore Mediation Centre, we have entered into a new alternative dispute resolution service known as the Integrated Appropriate Dispute Resolution Framework (or “INTEGRAF”). Through this service, the parties may establish a Conflict Avoidance Board to guide them through the various dispute resolution processes, and one or more of these processes, including mediation and neutral evaluation, may be applied to different aspects of each dispute.(31)
B. The appellate mechanism in the SICC
27. I turn to the SICC’s mechanism for error-correction, which is the parties’ right to appeal – a right that may be excluded or limited by agreement.(32)
i. Importance of an appellate mechanism
28. The importance of an appellate mechanism assumes greater significance in the light of some of the key trends I identified earlier, especially the growing complexity and value of these disputes.
29. With the increasing complexity of disputes, even the best of judges may sometimes make errors, especially when the issues are wide-ranging and may not always have sufficiently crystallised at first instance. An appellate mechanism allows errors to be corrected in individual cases; and just as importantly, judgments issued by the appellate court create precedents that promote broad consistency across cases and provide guidance for future disputes.
30. The appellate process can also provide the parties with the necessary closure to the dispute, and this can promote finality in the long run. Indeed, as our Court of Appeal noted in a recent case,(33) even a brief survey of the applications filed in our courts to set aside arbitral awards will reveal that most of these applications were, in substance, directed at the merits of the awards, and were therefore unsuccessful. This is not something that we condone, and we have criticised such attacks on the merits of arbitral awards, which typically come to us disguised as complaints of a process-related or jurisdictional failure. But we can perhaps understand the underlying sentiment that is at play, and that is the intuitive sense that when an error has been made, it should not be left unaddressed, especially when it results in significant and long-lasting consequences for the parties.
31. The appeal mechanism is therefore a key feature of the SICC. We typically sit as a 3-Judge panel in the Court of Appeal, comprising two Singapore Judges and one International Judge. But where the matter is particularly complex or there are novel issues to be determined, we may convene an enlarged panel of five Judges. For instance, in the Quoine case that I mentioned earlier, we convened a panel that included Justice Robert French, the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, and Justice Jonathan Mance, the former Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. And in Senda, apart from Justice French, we were also able to draw upon the expertise of Justice Vivian Ramsey in the Court of Appeal, who, in 2012, had served as the judge in charge of implementing reforms arising from the Review of Civil Litigation Costs in England and Wales, more commonly known as the Jackson Review.
32. Significantly, the statistics suggest that our Court of Appeal has had to intervene only in a minority of SICC cases. The percentage of appeals that have been fully allowed stands at around 11%, and this rises to around 29% if we were to include appeals that have been partially allowed, but I should clarify this also encompasses appeals that were in fact substantially dismissed with minor adjustments to the order below.(34) These figures are in part a reflection of the strength of our trial Bench, and in part because of the well-established principles of appellate intervention that we apply, such as the principle that an appellate court will not readily overturn findings of fact, unless these are plainly wrong or manifestly against the weight of the evidence.(35) And to prevent the appeal from functioning as a rehearing of the matter, there are also procedural safeguards to ensure that the parties do not raise new points or new evidence that might unfairly prejudice the opposing party.(36)
ii. Impact of appellate mechanism on costs
33. Some might contend that an appellate mechanism will necessaily result in proceedings becoming more protracted and therefore more costly. But let me offer an alternative perspective, which is that the availability of an avenue for appeal could actually help to contain costs. This is because it avoids the paradox of the “one-shot” contest that has come to the fore in arbitration.(37) This refers to the situation where the parties necessarily adopt a winner-takes-all mentality and so invest extensive resources in the arbitration battle, taking every conceivable point, thus prolonging the proceedings as a whole, even though many of these points may lack merit and really ought not to be pursued. But they feel constrained to approach the arbitration in this way because they recognise that there will generally be very limited scope to undo an unfavourable outcome given that interference with an award will usually only be permitted on jurisdictional or process-related grounds.
34. I therefore suggest it may be too simplistic to assume that the availability of an avenue for appeal will necessarily lead to an increase in costs for the parties. Instead, it could lead to more efficient and cost-effective outcomes, especially when it is coupled with a system of early and hands-on case management. Where this is the case, the parties may be more likely to focus on the key issues, confident that if something really did go badly wrong, there will yet be a chance for a second look.
C. The overarching philosophy of the SICC
35. I turn to the third and final area of the SICC that I would like to discuss today, and that is its willingness to embrace and adopt international best practices in dispute resolution, regardless of their origin. This is an overarching philosophy that we have adopted in the SICC from the time of its establishment.
36. Around the time we launched the SICC, President Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who was then our Deputy Prime Minister, suggested at the St Gallen Symposium that Singapore’s approach to governance has generally been, to “look at the rest of the world … to get some idea, some technique, some method that has worked well, and see how we can do it in Singapore, if possible, better”.(38) This is broadly the approach we have taken in the SICC. The reality is that commercial parties today are very international in outlook, and they will take their disputes to institutions which can offer procedures, processes and remedies that best meet their commercial needs and expectations. The parties today are largely agnostic over whether these best practices originate from a particular legal tradition or institution.
i. Adoption of international best practices for commercial disputes
37. Over the past decade, we have therefore adopted a targeted and calibrated approach in designing the features of the SICC, seeking to combine the best practices in litigation and arbitration, as well as across both common law and civil law traditions. Thus, our practice of active and early judge-led case management is inspired to some degree by the approach taken in civil law systems, and our costs recovery regime takes reference from that which is deployed in international arbitration.
38. There are other examples as well, and I will offer just two.
39. The first relates to the adjudication tracks that apply to disputes in the SICC. Claims in the SICC can be placed on one of three tracks: the pleadings track, the statements track, and the memorials track.(39) While the pleadings track and statements track resemble the common law process for originating claims and originating applications, the memorials track resembles the procedure used in many international arbitrations and civil law systems, where the parties file memorials that combine both their evidence and their legal submissions. The SICC Rules further confer on the court the discretion to modify the procedures in any given case, so as to suit its particular needs.(40) This is a particularly important factor that helps us better understand the value and significance of the CMCs I mentioned earlier. The result is a highly flexible and adaptable framework which can be used to chart the best procedural pathway that is tailored to the nature of the dispute and the circumstances of the parties – one that is not tethered to a particular legal tradition.
40. My second example relates to our rules on document disclosure, which are based in part on the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration. In the SICC, the parties are only required to produce the documents which they intend to rely on,(41) and they may also serve a request on the opposing party to produce specific categories of documents.(42) That means that there is no process of general discovery which requires the parties to automatically disclose all potentially relevant documents, a process which is found in most common law systems, but which may be extremely costly and time-consuming in complex commercial disputes. That said, there is again a high degree of flexibility to adjust the rules on document disclosure in any given case. Indeed, the SICC has the discretion to order general discovery; change the timing and manner of disclosure; or even dispense with disclosure in appropriate cases.(43)
ii. Bahrain International Commercial Court
41. Before I conclude, let me say a few words about our ongoing collaboration with the Kingdom of Bahrain to establish the Bahrain International Commercial Court (or “BICC”), which is targeted to be launched later this year. We are delighted to have Professor Jan Paulsson here with us today and he will preside over the BICC. This is a very significant project that has received strong support from both the Bahraini and the Singapore governments. I mentioned some of the key points at the Opening of the Legal Year yesterday, and I will not repeat what I said there.
42. But I want to highlight two points that relate to the key themes of my address today.
(a) The first is that the creation of the BICC is fundamentally a Bahraini project that seeks to deploy international best practices and cutting-edge innovations in dispute resolution. And it will do so principally by drawing on the experience of the SICC. The BICC shares the same overarching philosophy of the SICC that I described earlier, ensuring that it will provide a mode of dispute resolution that is thoroughly international in outlook and in practice.
(b) The second point is that appeals from the BICC may be heard by the newly established International Committee of the SICC,(44) comprising our local and International Judges, as well as ad hoc judges from the BICC. This transnational appeal mechanism will ensure that there is a robust process to correct errors, and it also promotes the coherent development of a sophisticated body of transnational commercial law.
43. In the light of these points, it has been observed that our collaboration with Bahrain has resulted in a groundbreaking and unique mechanism for the resolution of international commercial disputes.(45) But I want to suggest that this development is wholly in line with the key points that I have made today. We in Singapore see this project as part of our effort to make a meaningful contribution to shaping the future of transnational commercial justice and to assist in establishing a very robust dispute resolution framework to serve a very important commercial region, and we are very excited to work with like-minded counterparts in Bahrain.
IV. Conclusion
44. Allow me to conclude. When we first studied the idea to establish the SICC in 2013, we had hoped that it would become a serious and leading forum for court-based international commercial dispute resolution. Just a decade after its formation in 2015, I think it is safe to say that the SICC has delivered on its promise, and we see this not only in the surveys that I mentioned earlier, but also in our growing caseload, as well as the important contributions that the SICC has made to the development of transnational commercial law.
45. The three areas that I have focused on today – our distinctive approach to costs, our robust appellate mechanism, and our adoption of international best practices – have been key features of the SICC and contributors to its success. But beyond this, lie the people who have brought us to this point. I must first mention the unwavering support we have received from the Government, ever since the idea to establish a dedicated ICC in Singapore was first mooted. The journey from vision to reality, including the passage of legislative and constitutional amendments, spanned an incredibly short period of just two years! And this was then followed by the tremendous efforts of our people – specifically, our team of Judges, International Judges, Registrars and staff, and the superb support of our wider community consisting of the profession, our users and institutions like the Law Society and the SAL. The SICC today is very much a product of many hands, and we are deeply grateful to all of them.
46. Thank you very much for being here and I wish you all a very successful and fruitful conference.
*I am deeply grateful to my law clerk, Chang Wen Yee, and my colleagues, Assistant Registrars Wee Yen Jean and Bryan Ching, for all their assistance in the research for and preparation of this address.
(1) Sundaresh Menon CJ, “The Law of Commerce in the 21st Century: Transnational commercial justice amidst the wax and wane of globalisation”, lecture hosted by the University of Western Australia Law School and the Supreme Court of Western Australia (27 July 2022) and Sundaresh Menon CJ, “The Transnational System of Commercial Justice and the Place of International Commercial Courts”, lecture in Bahrain (9 May 2023) (“Bahrain Lecture”).
(2) See the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (“SICC Rules”). The SICC Rules are driven by the general principles set out in O 1 r 3: the expeditious and efficient administration of justice according to law; procedural flexibility; fair, impartial and practical processes; and procedures compatible with and responsive to the needs and realities of international commerce.
(3) Bahrain Lecture at paras 64–65; see also Philip Jeyaretnam J, “Singapore’s new chapter in the story of transnational commercial justice” (15 November 2024), The Business Times.
(4) See O 2 1(1) of the SICC Rules. For a case to be commenced in the SICC, it must be international and commercial in nature; the parties must have submitted to the SICC’s jurisdiction in a written jurisdiction agreement; and the parties must not seek any relief in the form of, or connected with, a prerogative order (such as a mandatory order, a prohibiting order, a quashing order, or an order for review of detention).
(5) SIDRA International Dispute Resolution Survey: 2024 Final Report (“2024 SIDRA Survey”) at para 7.9, available at https://sidra.smu.edu.sg/sites/sidra.smu.edu.sg/files/survey-2024/read/index.html. Two commentators have also described the SICC as being “the most innovative and boundary-pushing of the international commercial courts, and is poised to develop international commercial law”. See Pamela Bookman and Alyssa King, “Conclusion: Transnational Dispute Resolution, International Commercial Courts, and the Future of International Commercial Law” in Sundaresh Menon and Anselmo Reyes (eds), Transnational Commercial Disputes in an Age of Anti-Globalism and Pandemic (Hart Publishing, 2023) at 331.
(6) SIDRA International Dispute Resolution Survey: 2022 Final Report at para 7.17, available at https://sidra.smu.edu.sg/sites/sidra.smu.edu.sg/files/survey-2022/62/index.html.
(7) Sundaresh Menon CJ, “Transnational Relitigation and the Doctrine of Transnational Issue Estoppel”, paper delivered at the 8th Judicial Seminar on Commercial Litigation (14 March 2024).
(8) Minister for Foreign Affairs Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s Oral Reply to Parliamentary Question on Major Power Blocs (11 November 2024) at para 2.
(9) Jane Fraser, “We’re approaching a new era of diversification in global trade: Here’s why it matters” (9 January 2024), World Economic Forum.
(10) Sundaresh Menon CJ, Response at the Opening of Legal Year 2015 (5 January 2015) at para 20(a).
(11) Sundaresh Menon CJ, “Transnational Commercial Law and the Development of the Modern-Day Lex Mercatoria”, lecture to the National Judges College, Beijing (29 November 2023) at para 49.
(12) Sundaresh Menon CJ, “The Complexification of Disputes in the Digital Age”, Goff Lecture 2021 (9 November 2021).
(13) Sundaresh Menon CJ, “The Transformation of Litigation and the Litigator of the Future”, keynote address at the Litigation Conference 2024 (3 April 2024) at para 13.
(14) Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd [2020] 2 SLR 20; see also Sundaresh Menon CJ, “Judging and the Judiciary: Challenges and Lessons in the Age of Technology”, speech at the Korea-Singapore Legal Technology Seminar (19 October 2020) at paras 8–15.
(15) BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and another [2016] 4 SLR 1.
(16) William Alden, “New Firm Plans to Invest in Lawsuits” (8 April 2013), The New York Times.
(17) David Lat, “Litigation Funding is Here to Stay, But Faces New Challenges (1)” (6 November 2024), Bloomberg Law.
(18) Chen Siyuan and Louis Lau Yi Hang, “Singapore” in Nikolaus Pitkowitz (ed), Handbook on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration, 2nd edition (Juris Publishing, 2025).
(19) John Pierce and David Burnett, “The Emerging Market for Litigation Funding” (2013) The Hedge Fund Journal, Issue 86.
(20) See r 3 of the Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Regulations 2017.
(21) 2024 SIDRA Survey at paras 4.15 and 4.23.
(22) Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96 (“Senda”).
(23) See the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 at para 138(1) and Appendix G.
(24) Senda at [51].
(25) Senda at [52].
(26) See https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/docs/default-source/sicc-docs/guide-to-the-assessment-of-costs-in-the-singapore-international-commercial-court-(feb-2024).pdf.
(27) O 28 r 10 and Appendix E of the SICC Rules.
(28) O 9 r 4(2)(c) of the SICC Rules read with Form 16 in Appendix A of the SICC Rules.
(29) Philip Jeyaretnam J, “Transnational Issue Estoppel in the Context of International Arbitration”, speech delivered at the International Bar Association Symposium 2024 (26 August 2024) at para 2.
(30) For further details on the LML Protocol, see https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/singapore-international-commercial-court/litigation-mediation-litigation-framework.
(31) For further details on INTEGRAF, see https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/singapore-international-commercial-court/sicc-and-integraf.
(32) See s 29 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) and Fourth Schedule, para 3; and s 29A of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) and Fifth Schedule, para 5.
(33) See, for example, CVV and others v CWB [2024] 1 SLR 32 at [2]; see also Swire Shipping Pte Ltd v Ace Exim Pte Ltd [2024] 5 SLR 706 at [1].
(34) As of 31 December 2024.
(35) See Yong Kheng Leong and another v Panweld Trading Pte Ltd and another [2013] 1 SLR 173 at [18].
(36) See, for example, JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law Corp and another [2020] 2 SLR 744 and COD v COE [2023] SGCA 29.
(37) Sundaresh Menon CJ, “Towards a Transnational System of Dispute Resolution”, opening lecture for the DIFC Courts Lecture Series 2015 (1 January 2015) at para 48.
(38) TODAY, “The Singapore success story: Free play key to growth” (20 May 2015), available at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/singapore-success-story-free-play-key-growth.
(39) O 4 r 6(1) of the SICC Rules.
(40) O 4 r 6(3) of the SICC Rules.
(41) O 12 r 1 of the SICC Rules.
(42) O 12 r 2 of the SICC Rules.
(43) O 12 r 5 of the SICC Rules.
(44) The Singapore International Commercial Court (International Committee) Bill (Bill No 36/2024) was passed on 12 November 2024. This provided for the creation of a standalone body to hear prescribed civil appeals and related proceedings from courts in prescribed foreign jurisdictions.
(45) See, for example, Alison Ross, “New Bahrain International Commercial Court with appeal to Singapore paves way for dispute hub” (20 March 2024), Global Arbitration Review.
2025/01/15
Share this page:
