Official website links end with .gov.sg
A Singapore Government Agency Website
Secure websites use HTTPS
Justice Philip Jeyaretnam: Speech delivered at the Korean Council for International Arbitration
KOREAN COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
“The Singapore International Commercial Court and International Arbitration”
Wednesday, 12 March 2025
The Honourable Justice Philip Jeyaretnam*
President, Singapore International Commercial Court
Judge of the High Court
Supreme Court of Singapore
I. INTRODUCTION
1. It is a pleasure to be in such esteemed company and to have the distinct privilege of addressing you this afternoon. I am delighted both to renew friendships and to make new ones. While we have been driving around Seoul, we have been struck repeatedly by the majesty of the great Han River. It is not uncommon for civilisations to emerge along the banks of large rivers – such as the Nile in Egypt or the Indus in India. Korea is indeed a great civilisation.
2. Water bodies are important for Singapore too, especially the sea. We have a large deep natural harbour, in the sweet spot between the two monsoon winds that once filled the sails of trading vessels from China to Arabia and back again.
3. The theme of my address today is “The Singapore International Commercial Court (or SICC) and International Arbitration”. Established in 2015, the SICC has just crossed its tenth anniversary this year. I will take you through several significant features of the SICC. I will also touch on ADR, which I would define as Appropriate Dispute Resolution. The adjective “appropriate” avoids the oppositional adjective of “alternative”.(1) Court rulings, arbitration and mediation, all play roles in the resolution of a dispute. In the realm of cross-border commerce, disputes are varied, complex and often demand a spectrum of dispute resolution mechanisms.
4. Parties and indeed counsel should develop a keen understanding of the available options in order to better advise clients and play their part in the fair, efficient and just resolution of commercial disputes.
5. The SICC has reshaped the landscape for cross-border disputes by disrupting the traditional dichotomy between domestic courts and international arbitration as mutually exclusive dispute resolution service providers.(2) The SICC offers an option for resolving disputes in a way that is not just legally sound, but also appropriately suited to cater to the unique needs and circumstances of the parties involved. To understand the SICC, it is important to understand why it was established. This requires appreciating that the Singapore courts prior to the SICC were already highly regarded internationally. Following a series of energetic reforms in the 1990s, Singapore’s courts at the beginning of the millennium offered the dispensation of fair, impartial and high-quality justice within a time frame that compared favourably with commercial courts in leading centres such as London and New York. English is the language of government in Singapore, and so foreign investors putting their money into Singapore were comfortable being litigants within our court system. Our judiciary was already well-respected for its commercial expertise. I am explaining this to show that, unlike many other commercial courts established over the past two decades around the world, the SICC was not a response to any lack of domestic judicial expertise in commercial law or any lack of fluency with the international language of business which is English.
6. So why then was the SICC set up? It was set up to supplement, support and anchor Singapore’s then emerging role as a preferred hub for the resolution of cross-border disputes that had no connection with Singapore. By 2012, Singapore had become one of the two preferred arbitration seats in Asia, along with Hong Kong. Many international businesses were already choosing Singapore as the seat of arbitration in the event of a dispute. In that same year, Singapore hosted the 21st Congress of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration, the result of a successful bid led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, in his previous capacity as Deputy Chairman of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”).(3) But there were some signs of unease with the efficiency and effectiveness of international arbitration. It was felt that a court designed to dispense transnational commercial justice would offer international business an additional option. Compared to arbitration, courts offer parties two advantages in the availability of appeals. The first one is that appeals allow legal and factual errors to be corrected, if necessary. The second is that in a court, it is also easier to combine multiple proceedings and multiple claims against different parties. In terms of structure, the SICC was thus formed as part of the High Court, with appeals to the Court of Appeal.
7. Let me now describe the three types of cases over which the SICC has jurisdiction. The first is to hear commercial disputes in international matters where the parties have chosen the SICC as the court.
8. The SICC also has jurisdiction over international arbitrations seated in Singapore. I will say more about this aspect later. Its third source of original jurisdiction is over cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters.
9. Uniquely, the SICC combines three pillars of judicial expertise: Singapore commercial judges, international common law judges and international civil law judges. There is great value in combining the experience and expertise of Singapore judges with international judges from leading common law and civil law jurisdictions. Cases may be heard by a coram of three made up of a Singapore commercial judge, an international common law judge and an international civil law judge. That has happened on a number of occasions and when it does, each brings to the matter their complementary expertise and experience. And in certain instances where there are more complicated cases, a five judge coram has been empanelled.
10. As of today, the SICC has achieved a strong reputation as the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (“SIDRA”) Survey latest findings demonstrate.(4)
II. PROCEDURAL FLEXIBILITY AND ADAPTABILITY
11. Let me first illustrate the procedural flexibility and adaptability which are cornerstones of the SICC’s approach. Case management in the SICC is Judge-led and parties are able to choose one of three multiple adjudication tracks for their claims which serve different complexities, urgencies and requirements. These are the Pleadings Adjudication Track, the Statements Adjudication Track, or the Memorials Adjudication Track.(5)
12. The Pleadings Adjudication Track commences with the exchange of pleadings, which set out the material facts for each party and serves to define the issues. Pleadings are required to be verified by a statement of truth and this generally culminates in a trial of the matter. This would be familiar to those of us brought up in the traditional common law process. The Statements Adjudication Track requires parties to only file witness statements which set out the evidence relevant to their claims and defences. This culminates in a hearing on submissions and is akin to the common law procedure traditionally know as originating summonses. The Memorials Adjudication Track involves parties sequentially filing memorials that set out the parties’ respective statement of facts, legal arguments, reliefs claimed and should be accompanied by witness statements, expert reports and supporting documents. This adopts more of a civil law approach and is something familiar to many of you from your practices in international arbitration.
13. The Court also has the discretion to modify the default procedures that apply to the chosen adjudication track and to modify the document disclosure regime, including changing the timing and manner of disclosure or even dispensing with disclosure.(6) In all of these things, the Court takes an active roles and may take into consideration any agreement between the parties in deciding on the applicable adjudication track.(7)
14. The availability of the three adjudication tracks, coupled with the Court’s power to modify the adjudication track as it considers appropriate and to take onboard parties’ preferences, allows procedures to be bespoke in a manner that best caters to the needs of the parties and the nature of the dispute at hand. This ability to customise the appropriate adjudication track exemplifies the SICC’s approach to effective and efficient case management in facilitating swift and cost-effective resolution of a dispute. I should emphasise that early on in a dispute, the case is docketed to Judges and the very first case management conference is led by Judges and this process continues throughout the proceedings.
III. FOREIGN LAW AND INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION
15. I turn to highlight the treatment of foreign law in the SICC and the ability for parties to choose their counsel.
16. First, in line with the international character of the Court, foreign law does not need to be pleaded and proved as fact in SICC proceedings, as Judges are able to take judicial notice of foreign law with the assistance of oral and written submissions, supported by relevant authorities, which is similar to the practice in international arbitration. The SICC would then apply foreign law to determine the issues in dispute. I can tell you that amongst the foreign laws that have come up in the SICC, it has been Korean law on a number of occasions.
17. Second, parties in SICC proceedings may be represented by foreign lawyers registered with the SICC which allows them to act as counsel in offshore cases with no substantial connection to Singapore. The type of registration will determine the scope of work that they may undertake on behalf of a party in a case in the SICC. Where leave is granted for questions of foreign law to be determined on the basis of submissions instead of proof, parties may continue to be represented by registered foreign lawyers to make such submissions.(8) The Court may then be addressed by different parties, each qualified in a different law.
18. Let me illustrate how foreign representation assists in the conduct of proceedings in the SICC by citing an example. In BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd v PT Bayan Resources TBK(9), the governing law of two of the relevant agreements was Indonesian law. The parties obtained an order for certain questions of applicable Indonesian law to be determined on the basis of submissions instead of proof.(10) In order to determine an issue of Indonesian law, the Court was able to consider expert reports and also heard oral submissions by one of the defendant’s experts, a member of the Indonesian Bar, and witness evidence by one of the plaintiffs’ experts.
19. This is of course a marked departure from the position before domestic courts where foreign qualified lawyers may not typically have a right of audience in the courts of other jurisdictions, except for ad hoc admissions. There are more than one hundred non-Singapore lawyers who have registered with the SICC across more than 18 jurisdictions.(11)
20. A number of South Korean registered foreign lawyers have been granted registration to act in a matter I will speak about later.(12) The process for registration with the SICC is seamless and we hope to have more members from the Korean Bar register in due course with the SICC.
IV. TECHNOLOGY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION LIST
21. I now turn to the Technology, Infrastructure and Construction List (“TIC List”), which allows parties to avail themselves of procedures carefully designed to contain or downsize complex disputes.(13) Such technically complex cases run the gamut from building and construction disputes, engineering disputes to disputes relating to surveyors and claims relating to the supply of goods or services for technology, infrastructure and construction projects.
22. First in such disputes, this is where the power to join parties becomes particularly important.(14) This means that a multiparty dispute between the owner, the main contractor, the principal designer and various specialists can be decided within a single proceeding, if this is just and convenient.
23. Matters placed in the TIC List are presided over by specialist judges with deep experience of infrastructure claims. Such judges would include Sir Vivian Ramsey and Douglas Jones, both well-known for their expertise in construction law.
24. The TIC List’s rules, protocols and procedures are designed for complex technical multi-party involvement. Cases placed on the TIC List benefit from additional case management features particularly suited to the expeditious resolution of technically complex disputes. For instance, the Court has broad and flexible powers relating to the management of expert evidence. Expert witness conferencing is readily employed. Judges take an active role in the management of the process in which expert evidence is taken.(15)
25. Two voluntary protocols have been introduced in relation to the TIC List. The first is a Pre-Action Protocol, that facilitates the frank and early exchange of information between the parties about their dispute. Parties exchange summaries of their claims and responses and attend a pre-action meeting and discuss whether they can resolve their disputes without litigation. If they decide that litigation is to continue, parties can decide how to narrow the dispute, for example by appointing a common expert.(16)
26. The second is an optional Simplified Adjudication Process Protocol (the “Protocol”).(17) This streamlines the resolution of small value claims in cases containing a large number of distinct claims. Parties can then choose the claims which they wish to resolve by the Protocol. The Protocol divides claims into three categories: main claims, higher value excluded claims and lower value excluded claims. Main claims are tried in the usual manner while higher value excluded claims are tried under a simplified process based solely on agreed documents and written submissions in a tabular form, supported by tightly circumscribed expert evidence with no other factual evidence permitted. Lower value excluded claims are to be awarded without any adjudication, according to an agreed formula based on the proportion of recovery of main claims by each party.
27. These innovations provide users with useful options in the management of complex multi-party disputes across multiple contracts and assist them in finding the most appropriate dispute resolution option best suited to their needs.
28. International business seeks fair, efficient and just adjudication of commercial disputes. But getting judgment is not enough. There must be effective recognition and enforcement of commercial judgments.
29. SICC judgments, which are superior court Singapore judgments, are broadly enforceable around the world without any relitigation or reconsideration of the merits of the claim on which judgment has been given. The four principal methods for enforcement are:
(a) Enforcement under the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements;
(b) Enforcement by way of registration in the courts of countries with whom Singapore has arrangements for reciprocal enforcement;
(c) Enforcement under the common law cause of action on a debt; and
(d) Enforcement under a civil law procedure.
30. For the first, the countries of the European Union and the United Kingdom are signatories to the Hague Convention. For the second, Singapore has arrangements for reciprocal enforcement through the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959 with Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Hong Kong SAR, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom. In connection with all of this, the Supreme Court of Singapore has entered into Memoranda of Guidance relating to the enforcement of money judgments with several jurisdictions to build familiarity and to set out guidance for parties seeking to enforce judgments. Turning to the third method, namely common law enforcement, Singapore judgments have been enforced summarily in, among other jurisdictions, Canada(18) and the USA.(19) Finally, for the fourth method of enforcement under a civil law procedure, Singapore judgments have been enforced in, among other civil law jurisdictions, China(20), Japan(21) and Vietnam(22).
31. The big picture is that judgments of the SICC may be enforced in all major jurisdictions around the world without relitigation or reconsideration of the merits.
V. APPROPRIATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
32. Let me then turn to the question of ADR.
33. It is increasingly recognised today that complex disputes are best addressed by unbundling them so that different parts of the dispute can be decided by the appropriate method for that aspect of the dispute. A good example would be a complex infrastructure dispute. There may be defects claims and delay claims. There may be design and construction issues. Some issues may be legal ones while others might be factual issues that require considerable expert evidence. In such situations, it might be helpful to first obtain a court ruling on interpretation of a particular provision in the contract before then seeking a neutral evaluation where the evaluator would apply the court’s authoritative interpretation.
34. As a division of the General Division of the High Court, the SICC has a wide discretion to order parties to attempt to resolve a dispute by amicable resolution and to give directions to facilitate parties’ attempts at ADR.(23) Parties are to consider the possibility of ADR(24) and be prepared to inform the Court on the case’s suitability for ADR before case management conferences. This includes identifying interests that cannot be achieved by court-ordered remedies(25), or considering whether there is any subsisting commercial relationship which it is important to preserve.(26) If the parties reach a settlement through ADR, the SICC may record a consent order in the terms of the settlement. Parties’ attitudes towards ADR can also be taken into account in the award of costs by the Court.
35. Such hybrid or mixed mode mechanisms have been carefully integrated into the SICC’s processes and procedures and allow parties to apply one or more modes of dispute resolution solutions to streamline their disputes. I mention two such holistic approaches to conflict avoidance and resolution:
(a) First, the SICC and the Singapore International Mediation Centre (“SIMC”) jointly developed a Litigation-Mediation-Litigation Protocol where proceedings initiated at the SICC may be referred to mediation at the SIMC. A case management stay will be granted by the SICC to allow for mediation to take place. Should the mediation be successful, the SICC can record the terms of the settlement as an order of court to facilitate its enforcement.
(b) Second, the SICC has also collaborated with the Singapore Mediation Centre on an ADR service known as the Integrated Appropriate Dispute Resolution Framework (“INTEGRAF”). INTEGRAF provides parties with guidance to unbundle complex disputes by applying the most appropriate dispute resolution mechanism drawn from the full suite of ADR options – be it arbitration, mediation, neutral evaluation, interim adjudication, or indeed litigation, to the whole or part of a dispute. Parties may avail themselves of the services of a neutral professional who acts as a signalperson(27). His or her duty is to help them resolve their disputes in an effective, efficacious and economical manner. In the ebb and flow of commercial relationships that have broken down, adopting INTEGRAF helps preserve relationships between multiple stakeholders and encourages parties to find a mutually beneficial path forward.(28)
VI. INTERNATIONAL ARBTRATION
36. I turn now to international arbitration. As of today, Singapore is one of the top arbitration seats globally and the SIAC is the most preferred arbitral institution in the Asia-Pacific and second in the world.(29)
37. I will cover the four aspects shown on the slide, namely:
(a) The Court’s philosophy concerning arbitration;
(b) Challenges to arbitral jurisdiction;
(c) Setting aside of arbitral awards, with a focus on Natural justice challenges; and
(d) Court-ordered interim measures in support of arbitration.
38. The philosophy of the courts in Singapore is to apply the law, which is aligned with the UNCITRAL Model Law, so as to protect and promote the process and integrity of international arbitration.
39. The approach that we have taken has been described as pro arbitration with minimum curial intervention. Words like “pro” or “minimal” may, however, not reflect the true approach and I have thus described this as the Goldilocks outcome: not ‘too hot’ and not ‘too cold’ when it comes to setting aside awards. Instead, we strive to be ‘just right’. We achieve this as I have said by following the law, and in doing so, we apply such policies as first, seeking to give effect to parties’ broad intention to arbitrate disputes effectively when construing arbitration agreements, and second, reading arbitration awards generously and in context. We are not grading awards for As or Bs. We do not give out prizes for the best written awards. All that matters for our purposes is whether the award gets a passing grade, by which I mean that it must meet the requirements of a fair hearing and come within the jurisdiction of the tribunal. Nonetheless, it is important to protect the integrity of the arbitration process by intervening where mandated by law and only where mandated by law.
40. I would also add that businesses are concerned with the entire life cycle of the dispute. We in the courts do encourage arbitrators to proceed expeditiously. We also recognise that awards may be written under time pressure, and they must be read in that light. We also know that when an arbitration award is challenged, it comes to the court after one to two years of a full-blown dispute. And so we are committed ourselves to managing challenges efficiently and quickly. When a challenge is filed, we typically dispose of it within six months at first instance and within a further six months for the appeal. These are of course typical times, and there will be exceptions where a case is particularly complex and so takes longer to dispose of.
41. Coming back to the special feature of the SICC, it brings to the superintendence of international arbitrations seated in Singapore the combined experience and expertise of Singapore judges and international judges from leading common law and civil law jurisdictions. In a coram of three hearing an arbitration challenge, especially one that has some aspect of a system of civil law in it, the SICC would typically bring together a Singapore judge, an international common law judge and an international civil law judge. From my own personal experience, I have seen how valuable this combination is when it comes to understanding and evaluating the case in front of us.
42. In CNA v CNB and anor and other matters(30), the Court at first instance considered a tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide issues arising from a purported termination of its mandate. The lead respondent in the arbitration commenced under the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC”) sought to terminate the tribunal’s mandate by executing a subsequent arbitration agreement between the parties, submitting the same dispute to another arbitral institution. The respondents averred that this was valid and binding on the claimants as it had previously granted the lead respondent authority to contract on its behalf. So they asserted that the ICC tribunal lost its mandate to continue with the arbitration. The tribunal disagreed and proceeded to issue its awards. The aggrieved party applied to the SICC to set aside the awards on jurisdictional grounds, i.e., that the tribunal’s mandate had been terminated. The SICC upheld the awards but for our purposes what is significant is that on the question of authority and the duties of an agent, the SICC heard submissions under both Korean and Singapore law and heard directly from the parties’ respective Korean law experts at the hearing. For this purpose, those law experts were registered with the SICC, as I mentioned earlier.
43. I now turn to jurisdictional challenges.
44. In accordance with the Model Law jurisdiction, arbitral tribunals have the competence to decide their own jurisdiction. Jurisdiction may be determined by the arbitral tribunal as a preliminary question or in its final award. If it is decided as a preliminary question, then the parties can seek an immediate review of that ruling in court. Singapore amended its law to permit court review of negative jurisdictional rulings, i.e., where the tribunal has declined jurisdiction. (31) After an award is made, parties have three months to apply to court to set it aside.
45. The slide shows the grounds for setting aside, which I am sure are familiar to all of you. These include jurisdictional grounds, natural justice grounds, non-arbitrability, public policy and where an award has been induced by fraud or corruption. We can discuss any of these grounds further in the discussion that follows.
46. However, let me elaborate a little on natural justice challenges.
47. You have probably heard the phrase “due process paranoia”.(32) Perhaps you have been gripped by it yourself. It refers to the concern of arbitrators that if they take a robust procedural decision in the interest of efficiency, it is liable to be overturned by a court as being unfair to one of the parties. In the case of the Singapore courts at least, there is no such danger for the robust arbitrator who seeks to manage the process efficiently. As you can see from the slide, the court’s approach to a natural justice challenge is rigorous, requiring the challenging party to show clearly what the breach was and how it related to the making of the award. When it comes to procedural decisions, such as how much time to allow for steps in the process, or whether to grant an extension of time, the court will not intervene unless the decision falls outside the bounds of what a reasonable fair-minded tribunal might have done in those circumstances. These are very wide bounds, and really gives arbitrators broad procedural discretion.
48. I now briefly cover court-ordered interim measures in support of international arbitration.
49. The SICC has power to and does grant anti-suit injunctions where one party in breach of an arbitration clause has commenced a suit elsewhere.(33) Such injunctions are directed at parties and not of course at the courts before whom such proceedings have been commenced. The SICC has also granted freezing orders, including recently in respect of arbitrations seated outside of Singapore under the powers granted to our courts under the law, so long as it is appropriate to do so and the dispute has a sufficient link with Singapore, such as where the defendant has assets in Singapore.(34) Such powers promote transnational commercial justice by protecting the integrity and effectiveness of international arbitration. Without the exercise of such powers, the danger lies in the arbitration becoming toothless or unworkable.
VII. ACCESS TO SINGAPORE JUDGMENTS
50. Singapore judgments are now searchable via an AI-assisted search portal at https://search.pair.gov.sg.
51. This portal is accessible to anyone free-of-charge. It incorporates AI tools that will help summarise cases and find relevant cases on the same topic. You can use this portal to look up the cases I mentioned earlier. Indeed, you can look up all of the judgments rendered in the SICC which now exceed 160 at first instance and close to 50 on appeal.(35)
VIII. CONCLUSION
52. International commercial courts such as the SICC have a critical role to play in providing a supportive, facilitative and ultimately nurturing role in the emerging system of transnational justice.(36) International commercial courts strengthen access to justice and the rule of law by offering users a choice of dispute resolution that is appropriate and responsive to their needs and preferences, and it is this quality that makes international commercial courts critical contributors to the transnational system of commercial justice.(37)
53. At the SICC Conference held in January to commemorate the SICC’s 10th anniversary, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong observed that domestically, the strong rule of law has been a cornerstone of the Singapore model and has underpinned our progress as a nation.(38) In a troubled geopolitical environment today, he observed that the international rule of law becomes all the more important and precious because countries still need to co-exist and work with one another. That connects with what I have just said about international commercial courts.
54. It is in this context that a new chapter has opened in Singapore’s story of transnational commercial justice.(39) This year, we will see the launch of the International Committee of the SICC (the “International Committee”), which will hear prescribed civil appeals from international commercial courts situated outside of Singapore. This arises initially from our collaboration with the Kingdom of Bahrain in relation to the establishment of its new international commercial court, the Bahrain International Commercial Court (“BICC”), which will be modelled principally on the SICC and will provide for appeals from the BICC to the International Committee pursuant to a bilateral treaty inked between our respective states. Linking international commercial courts across different jurisdictions strengthens the anchoring role that they play in complementing non-court-based modes of dispute resolution such as arbitration and mediation. Indeed, such links uphold and promote the international rules-based order.
55. This session evidences our shared commitment to the effective and efficient adjudication of commercial disputes against the backdrop of the international rules-based order and the exchange of ideas in pursuit of this vision. I thank you for your attention and look forward to engaging in a meaningful discussion on these important issues.
*I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of my colleague, SICC Divisional Registrar Crystal Tan, in the preparation of this address.
(1) Justice Philip Jeyaretnam, Keynote address delivered at the Appropriate Dispute Resolution – The Singapore Way Event, Launch of Litigation-Mediation-Litigation Protocol and SICC Model Jurisdiction Clause for International Arbitration Matters (12 January 2023) at paragraph 2.
(2) Gu, Wexia and Tam, Jacky (2021) The Global Rise of International Commercial Courts: Typology and Power Dynamics, Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 22: No.2, Article 2 at p.445.
(3) Annex to Second Reading Speech by Minister for Law, K Shanmugam, on the International Arbitration (Amendment) Bill (9 April 2012).
(4) SIDRA Survey: 2024 Final Report.
(5) Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (“SICC Rules”), Order 4 r 6.
(6) SICC Rules, Order 12 r 5.
(7) SICC Rules, Order 4 r 6(2).
(8) SICC Rules, Order 16 r 8.
(9) [2016] 4 SGHC(I) 1.
(10) The order of court was obtained pursuant to Order 110 r 25 of the Rules of Court 2014 (Cap.322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) which was the applicable provision in the proceedings.
(11) As at 28 February 2025.
(12) See paragraph 42.
(13) SICC Rules, Order 28.
(14) SICC Rules, Order 10 r 5.
(15) SICC Rules, Order 28 r 7.
(16) SICC Rules, Order 28 r 3(8); Appendix D (Pre-Action Protocol for Dispute Involving TIC Claim).
(17) SICC Rules, Order 28 r 10(6); Appendix E (Simplified Adjudication Process Protocol).
(18) See, for example, Oakwell Engineering Ltd v Enernorth Industries Inc (2006) 81 O.R. (ed) 288.
(19) See, for example, Kim v Co-op Centrale Raffeisen-Boerenleebank BA 364 F. Supp. 2d. 346 (SDNY, 2005).
(20) See, for example, Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd v Aksa Far East Pte Ltd [2014] 2 SLR 545 which was relied and enforced by the Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, Jiangsu Province in (2016) Su 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 3 on the basis of the principle of reciprocity; the Wenzhou Intermediate People’s Court, Zhejiang Province, in Oceanside Development Group Ltd v Chen Tongkao & Chen Xiudan (2017) Zhe 03 Xie Wai Ren No. 7 which recognised a Singapore High Court decision in August 2019; and the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court in (2019) Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 22 which recognised a monetary judgment by the Singapore High Court in July 2021.
(21) See, for example, the judgment of the Tokyo District Court, January 2006 (Heisei 18), Hanrei Times No 1229 which concluded that a judgment of the Singapore High Court had satisfied all the requirements in Art 118 of the Civil Procedure Code of Japan and enforced the Singapore judgment
(22) See, for example, a judgment of the Singapore High Court which was enforced by the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City Case No 222/2016/TLST-DS, June 2016 on the basis of the principle of reciprocity, and affirmed on appeal to the Appellate Tribunal of the High People’s Court of Ho Chi Minh City in Case No 111/2017/QDPT-KDTM, June 2017.
(23) Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, Section 18I(1) read with 18(2) and paragraph 23; SICC Rules, Order 9 r 5.
(24) SICC Rules, Order 9 r 3(c) and Order 28, r 11.
(25) SICC Rules, Order 9 r 3 (c)(v).
(26) SICC Rules, Order 9 r 3 (c)(vi).
(27) Justice Philip Jeyaretnam, Keynote address on Appropriate Dispute Resolution for Transnational Projects in the Asian Context, 3rd Singapore-China International Commercial Dispute Resolution Conference 2023 (20 October 2023), at paragraph 17.
(28) Justice Philip Jeyaretnam, Speech delivered at the 25th Annual IBA Arbitration Day – Mediation Breakfast, Investor State Disputes: How Arbitration and Mediation can intertwine to provide more resonant solutions (23 February 2024), at paragraph 23.
(29) 2021 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case International Arbitration Survey: Adapting Arbitration to a Changing World.
(30) [2023] SGHC(I) 6.
(31) Clause 4, International Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2012.
(32) V K Rajah SC, Due Process “Paranoia”: Revisiting Misperceptions and Facts (2022) 1 SiArbJ 1-61.
(33) Gate Gourmet Korea Co, Ltd and others v Asiana Airlines, Inc [2023] SGHC(I) 23; Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc (also known as Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc) [2024] SGHC(I) 13.
(34) Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(I) 3.
(35) As at 28 February 2025.
(36) Justice Philip Jeyaretnam, Speech delivered at the SCL India Biennial Conference 2023, New Delhi (8 December 2023), at paragraph 12.
(37) Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, 7th International Bar Association Asia Pacific Regional Forum Biennial Conference, Dispute Resolution at the Intersection of Domestic and Transnational Justice Systems: The Case for International Commercial Courts (23 February 2023), at paragraph 4.
(38) Speech by Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the Singapore International Commercial Court Conference 2025 (14 January 2025) at paragraphs 5 and 17 (https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/SM-Lee-at-Singapore-International-Commercial-Court-Conference-2025) (accessed 1 March 2025).
(39) Opinion editorial by Justice Philip Jeyaretnam, Singapore’s new chapter in the story of transnational commercial justice (15 November 2024), The Business Times Singapore (https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/opinion-features/singapores-new-chapter-story-transnational-commercial-justice) (accessed 1 March 2025).
Topics:
Bilateral meetings
2025/03/13
Share this page:
