A Vendée manufacturer of lifting equipment learns on 3 March 2026, from a former employee of its Singapore distributor, that the distributor is transferring its stock and cash to a sister company incorporated six weeks earlier. The distribution contract refers disputes to SIAC arbitration and the arrears stand at 2,300,000 Singapore dollars. No arbitrator has yet been appointed, and constituting the tribunal will take several weeks. By then there will be nothing left to attach.
That is the situation the emergency arbitrator exists to handle. This page sets out the application and its deadlines, the protective preliminary order introduced in 2025 and made without hearing the other side, the cost of the mechanism, enforcement of the measure in Singapore, and how it fits with the Singapore judge and with the French one.
1. A window that closes when the tribunal is constituted
Before the tribunal is constituted, a party may apply for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator under the procedure in Schedule 1 (SIAC Rules 2025, rule 12.1). The wording marks out the field exactly: the mechanism covers the interval, often four to eight weeks, between the request for arbitration and the effective constitution of the tribunal.
That interval is precisely the one a well advised debtor chooses to organise its insolvency. It knows the request has been filed, it knows the appointment timelines, and it has a public calendar to work from. A company that waits patiently for the tribunal to be constituted before worrying about assets has already lost.
Once the tribunal is constituted, jurisdiction passes to it. It may, at a party’s request and unless otherwise agreed, order any interim or conservatory measure it considers appropriate, by order or by award, and make that measure conditional on the provision of security by the applicant (rule 45.1). The rules also give it power to order security for the costs of the proceedings and security for the claims themselves (rules 48 and 49).
2. Twenty four hours to appoint, fourteen days to decide
If the President of the SIAC decides that the centre accepts the application, he endeavours to appoint the emergency arbitrator within twenty four hours of the later of two dates, receipt of the application by the Registrar and receipt of payment of the fees and deposits (Schedule 1, paragraph 7). The second limb deserves attention: until the transfer has arrived, time does not run. An application filed on a Friday evening without the deposit paid produces nothing before Monday.
The emergency arbitrator has power to order any interim measure it deems necessary and must decide within fourteen days of appointment, unless extended by the Registrar, no order or award being made before the Registrar’s approval (Schedule 1, paragraph 17). It may also make a preliminary order pending submissions or consideration of the application (Schedule 1, paragraph 16), and make its measure conditional, in particular on appropriate security.
The timetable is therefore fifteen days in all between application and decision, which presupposes a file assembled before filing. The evidence of the risk of dissipation, extracts from the local companies register, bank statements, the chronology of transfers, all of it is gathered beforehand, because there will be no time for it during.
3. The protective preliminary order, new in 2025
The seventh edition introduced a mechanism French arbitration law does not know. Unless the parties agree otherwise, a party may file an application without notice to the other parties, seeking the appointment of an emergency arbitrator to consider an application for an interim measure together with an application for a preliminary order directing a party not to frustrate the purpose of the measure sought (Schedule 1, paragraph 25).
If the President accepts that application, he appoints the emergency arbitrator on the usual timetable (Schedule 1, paragraph 26), and that arbitrator decides the application for a preliminary order within twenty four hours of appointment (Schedule 1, paragraph 27). Between filing and an injunction restraining conduct, forty eight hours may therefore elapse, without the opposing party having been warned.
The value is obvious in cases of asset dissipation, abusive calls on first demand guarantees and cargo diversion. The procedural risk is just as obvious. A measure obtained without hearing the other side will have to be justified to that party afterwards, and then, where applicable, before the enforcement judge. Anyone obtaining one on a weak file risks seeing it discharged and their good faith debated for the rest of the arbitration.
The applicant should expect demanding scrutiny. The emergency arbitrator decides on the papers, in a few hours, without having heard the other side, and knows the decision will be challenged the next day. What carries conviction is never the assertion of a risk, but a dated chronology: the recent incorporation of a sister company with the same directors, a change of billing address, payments redirected to a new account, the termination of a lease, the simultaneous departure of key employees. Each of those can be checked in a public register or in commercial correspondence, and it is their accumulation, not their individual gravity, that tips the decision.
4. What emergency relief costs
The scale is fixed in advance, which allows a quick decision. The application administration fee is 5,000 Singapore dollars for foreign parties, non refundable. The emergency arbitrator’s fees are set at 25,000 dollars and the deposit payable at 30,000 dollars, unless the Registrar decides otherwise.
Thirty five thousand dollars committed in forty eight hours looks heavy against a two million claim. It looks far less heavy against the value of a claim that has become irrecoverable. The question is not the cost of the measure, but the probability that the assets will still exist at the date of the award, and that probability is assessed on facts, not on impressions.
Those sums form part of the costs of the arbitration, which expressly include the emergency arbitrator’s fees and expenses (rule 57.2). They may therefore be placed on the losing party in the final allocation, the tribunal further having power to order a party to bear all or part of its opponent’s legal costs, taking account of the parties’ conduct (rule 58.1).
5. Enforcing the measure in Singapore
An interim measure is worth only what can be enforced, and that is where Singapore law stands apart. The statutory definition of an arbitral tribunal expressly includes an emergency arbitrator appointed under the rules chosen by the parties (International Arbitration Act 1994, section 2(1)). The question, still debated elsewhere, of the legal nature of decisions made before the tribunal is constituted is there settled by the legislature itself.
The consequence follows. Orders and directions of an arbitral tribunal, emergency arbitrator included, are enforceable with the leave of the High Court in the same manner as court orders, judgment being capable of being entered in their terms (section 12(6)). An injunction restraining asset transfers obtained in forty eight hours can therefore be given local enforceability quickly, where the accounts are.
That is one of the strongest arguments for a Singapore seat where the counterparty operates from Singapore or holds its cash there. Emergency relief is not a stylistic clause there: it is backed by a text that makes it effective.
The mechanism works in two stages, and the statute distinguishes them precisely: leave of the General Division of the High Court, then enforcement in the same manner as a court order, with judgment capable of being entered in the terms of the order (section 12(6)). The second stage is the one that counts for a creditor, since it opens the local enforcement routes against accounts and receivables. It also explains why emergency relief is worth first and foremost the location of the assets it targets, and not the apparent severity of its terms.
6. The Singapore judge, even where the seat is elsewhere
The mechanism is not confined to arbitrations seated in Singapore. The High Court may order interim and conservatory measures in relation to an international arbitration, whether or not the place of arbitration is in Singapore (International Arbitration Act 1994, section 12A). For that purpose it has the same powers as in court proceedings, for the matters listed in the statute.
The text includes a discretion: the court may decline where it considers that the foreign seat, actual or likely, makes the measure inappropriate. Practice therefore decides the substance, and the decisive argument is almost always the location of the assets: a measure sought against accounts held in Singapore is readily justified, whatever the city of the seat.
For a French company, that provision opens an often neglected route: even with an ICC clause and a seat in Paris or Geneva, if the debtor operates from Singapore, the Singapore court can be asked for a conservatory measure. The seat governs review of the award, not where attachments happen.
7. The French judge, so long as the tribunal is not constituted
Symmetrically, applying to a national court for an interim or conservatory measure is not incompatible with the rules and constitutes neither a breach nor a waiver of the arbitration agreement, provided the tribunal and the Registrar are informed without delay of the application and of the decision (rule 45.2). An arbitration clause therefore does not close the door to interim relief.
In French law, the existence of an arbitration agreement does not prevent a party, so long as the tribunal is not constituted, from applying to a court of the State for an evidential measure or an interim or conservatory measure, that provision applying to international arbitration (code of civil procedure, article 1449, through article 1506). The window is the same on both sides, and it closes at the same moment.
The practical consequence is rarely anticipated and simple to state. A French company fearing dissipation of assets located in France, because the counterparty holds a subsidiary, an account or receivables from French customers there, should apply to the French judge before the tribunal is constituted, and reserve the emergency arbitrator for assets outside France. The two routes do not compete: they are chosen on a map, not on a principle.
8. What remains uncertain, and should be known before choosing
One question is unsettled, and it is better stated than avoided. There is to date no published decision of a French court on enforcement in France of a protective preliminary order made under Schedule 1 of the SIAC Rules. The reasoning can only be prospective, and it rests on known material: the code of civil procedure organises the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards (articles 1514 and following), and the characterisation adopted, order or award, will govern the route available.
That uncertainty has an immediate strategic consequence. Where the assets to be preserved are in France, it is safer to seek the measure from the French judge, whose decision is directly enforceable, than to obtain in Singapore a decision that will then have to be recognised. The emergency arbitrator retains its full usefulness for Asian assets, where section 12(6) of the Singapore statute gives it immediate effect.
One last drafting precaution follows. The rules preserve the possibility of a protective preliminary order unless the parties agree otherwise (Schedule 1, paragraph 25), and the possibility of applying to a national court unless otherwise stipulated (rule 45.2). A clause excluding either, sometimes proposed by a counterparty keen to avoid unilateral measures, deprives the creditor of both of its fast tools. It should be refused.
Frequently asked questions
Must the other side be warned before applying to the emergency arbitrator
In principle the application is notified to the other parties, but the 2025 rules create an exception. Unless otherwise agreed, a party may file its application without notice, to seek a preliminary order directing its opponent not to frustrate the purpose of the measure sought (Schedule 1, paragraph 25). The emergency arbitrator then decides within twenty four hours of appointment (Schedule 1, paragraph 27). The choice between the two routes turns on the reality of the risk of dissipation, because the without notice route is paid for afterwards in argument.
Is an emergency arbitrator’s order enforceable in France
The question is unsettled and we know of no published French decision on this precise point. In Singapore the answer is clear: the statute includes the emergency arbitrator in the definition of an arbitral tribunal and makes its orders enforceable with the leave of the High Court (International Arbitration Act 1994, sections 2(1) and 12(6)). In France the route will depend on the characterisation adopted. The practical conclusion is to ask the French judge for measures bearing on assets located in France.
Can you apply to the emergency arbitrator and to a national court at once
Yes. An application for interim relief to a national court is not incompatible with the rules and amounts to neither a breach nor a waiver of the arbitration agreement, provided the tribunal and the Registrar are informed without delay (rule 45.2). The division is geographical: the judge of the State where the assets are for attachments, the emergency arbitrator for injunctions to do or not to do binding on the party itself.
What becomes of the measure once the tribunal is constituted
Jurisdiction passes to the tribunal, which may at a party’s request order any interim or conservatory measure it considers appropriate and make it conditional on security (rule 45.1). Before the tribunal is constituted, the emergency arbitrator retains the power to reconsider, modify or discharge its order, on its own initiative or on a reasoned application (Schedule 1, paragraph 19). Emergency relief is therefore never final: it holds while the proceedings settle.
What does an emergency arbitrator application cost
For a foreign party, 5,000 Singapore dollars of non refundable administration fees, emergency arbitrator fees set at 25,000 dollars and a deposit of 30,000 dollars, unless the Registrar decides otherwise. Those sums form part of the costs of the arbitration (rule 57.2) and may therefore be placed on the losing party. Counsel’s fees are added, assembling the evidential file within days being the most demanding part of the work.