A Bordeaux wine and spirits trader signs, in January 2025, a three year exclusive distribution contract with a Singapore importer. The contract is in English, governed by French law at its request, and its last clause refers disputes to Singapore International Arbitration Centre arbitration, seat in Singapore, three arbitrators. Nobody discussed it in negotiation. Twenty months later the importer stops paying invoices and alleges conformity defects on two containers. The arrears stand at 840,000 Singapore dollars. The trader believes it has a three member tribunal and a full process. It will get a sole arbitrator, no document production and an award in three months.
This page sets out what choosing Singapore actually commits a French company to, and how the choice between the SIAC, the maritime chamber SCMA and ad hoc arbitration is made before signature. It covers the seat and its effects, what Singapore law adds to the UNCITRAL Model Law, the number of arbitrators, the cost on the scale in force, the threshold that triggers a lighter procedure without the parties’ consent, what a Singapore seat is worth to a French creditor, and the two deadlines bearing on contracts signed today.
1. The seat is not the hearing venue, and it is not the law of the contract
The costliest confusion in this field is to read the seat as an address. The SIAC rules distinguish the two unambiguously: the parties agree the seat and, failing agreement, the tribunal determines it (SIAC Rules 2025, rule 36.1). Nothing requires meeting in the city of the seat, and the award is deemed made at the seat and on the date it bears, wherever the arbitrators signed it (rule 52.4). A French company may therefore accept Singapore as the seat and argue in Paris, or by video link, without changing anything in the legal regime of the arbitration.
Nor is the seat to be confused with the law governing the merits. The tribunal applies the law or rules of law chosen by the parties and, failing that, those it considers appropriate (rule 35.1). A contract governed by French law can perfectly well be subject to an arbitration seated in Singapore, and that is a frequent combination in distribution and industrial supply contracts.
What the seat does govern comes down to three points no other stipulation produces. It designates the law of arbitral procedure, here the International Arbitration Act 1994, which gives the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration the force of law. It designates the court competent to set the award aside, the General Division of the High Court or, at the parties’ option, the Singapore International Commercial Court. And it designates the supporting judge, the one who steps in when the proceedings stall. Accepting a seat therefore means choosing a supervising court, not a meeting room.
2. What Singapore law adds to the Model Law
The International Arbitration Act 1994 does not merely incorporate the Model Law. It adds provisions that explain much of the jurisdiction’s appeal, and that directly concern a French company facing an uncooperative Asian counterparty.
The definition of an arbitral tribunal expressly includes an emergency arbitrator appointed under the rules chosen by the parties (IAA 1994, section 2(1)). The question, still debated in several countries, of the nature of decisions made before the tribunal is constituted is thus settled in advance. Orders and directions of the tribunal are moreover 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)).
The Singapore court may further order interim and conservatory measures even where the seat of the arbitration is outside Singapore, subject to declining where that foreign seat makes the measure inappropriate (section 12A). A company whose debtor holds accounts or stock in Singapore therefore has a fast route, including in an arbitration seated elsewhere. The award, finally, is final and binding from the moment it is made, the tribunal being unable to alter it (section 19B).
These provisions read together. They describe a system in which the court intervenes often, but almost always in support of the arbitration and very rarely against it. Review of the award remains narrow, confined to the grounds in article 34(2) of the Model Law, to which Singapore law adds only two cases, fraud or corruption having determined the award, and breach of the rules of natural justice having prejudiced a party’s rights (section 24).
3. SIAC, SCMA or ad hoc: a choice made on the contract
Ad hoc arbitration saves administrative fees and saves nothing else. It assumes that the parties, once the dispute has arisen, will cooperate to appoint arbitrators, negotiate their fees and settle a timetable. Experience contradicts that assumption as often as it is made. Institutional arbitration buys, at the price of a scale, a default appointment mechanism, scrutiny of the draft award by the secretariat and administration of the advances.
The Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration occupies an intermediate position that should be understood before choosing. Created in November 2004 as a department of the SIAC, then reconstituted in May 2009 as an independent institution, it offers non administered arbitration with optional services. There is therefore no imposed fee scale, no scrutiny of the draft award and no deposit fund, unless the parties opt in. The rules in force are those of the fourth edition, effective 1 January 2022. Where claims and counterclaims combined do not exceed 300,000 US dollars, or any other agreed amount, the arbitration follows the SCMA expedited procedure, which the parties may exclude by express stipulation (SCMA Rules, 4th edition, rule 44).
The choice between the two institutions is made on the nature of the contract, never on the nationality of the parties. The SCMA suits charterparties, bills of lading, ship sales, shipbuilding contracts and bunker supplies, where arbitrators drawn from shipping bring expertise nothing replaces. The SIAC suits complex or multi party transactions that are maritime only in their subject matter: ship finance, an owning joint venture, an equipment supply chain, a multi year maintenance contract. The commonest error is to insert an SCMA clause into an equipment maker’s framework contract because the customer is a shipowner, when the dispute will concern the conformity of an industrial supply and not a charter.
4. One or three arbitrators, and why silence gives the sole arbitrator
The rules provide that the tribunal consists of one or three arbitrators and that, failing agreement between the parties on that number, a sole arbitrator is appointed, unless the Registrar decides, after taking the parties’ views, that the dispute warrants a three member tribunal (rule 19.1). Silence in the clause therefore favours the sole arbitrator, which regularly surprises French drafters used to the opposite solution.
Appointment deadlines are short and run from the commencement of the arbitration. For a sole arbitrator, the parties have twenty one days to appoint jointly, failing which the President of the SIAC does so (rule 21). For a three member tribunal, the claimant appoints its arbitrator within fourteen days of commencement and the respondent within fourteen days of receiving that appointment (rule 22.1). A legal department discovering the clause when it receives the request for arbitration therefore has very little time to settle an appointment strategy, which is nonetheless one of the few irreversible decisions in the proceedings.
Three arbitrators are justified where the stakes are high, where the dispute mixes legal and technical questions, or where the counterparty is a State or a public entity. They are not justified because the clause was copied from an earlier contract. And, as we will see, stipulating three arbitrators does not survive the threshold that triggers the streamlined procedure.
5. What an administered arbitration in Singapore really costs
The SIAC scale in force since 1 January 2025 sets a non refundable filing fee of 3,000 Singapore dollars for foreign parties, administrative fees capped on a progressive grid and arbitrator fees capped on a separate grid. Those amounts are caps, not forecasts, and they include neither counsel’s fees, nor expert evidence, nor translation.
On a 5,000,000 Singapore dollar dispute, administrative fees reach at most 36,000 dollars and each arbitrator’s fees 130,000 dollars. Total institutional cost therefore comes to about 169,000 dollars with a sole arbitrator, and about 429,000 dollars with three. The difference, 260,000 dollars, is more than five per cent of the amount claimed, and it is paid before any counsel is remunerated. On a 20,000,000 dollar dispute the gap rises to 400,000 dollars, the two configurations standing at about 259,000 and 659,000 dollars respectively.
The costs of the arbitration comprise the tribunal’s fees and expenses, those of the centre, those of the emergency arbitrator where applicable, those of the tribunal secretary, the cost of tribunal appointed experts and the filing fees (rule 57.2). The tribunal may further order a party to bear all or part of its opponent’s legal costs, taking account in particular of the parties’ conduct during the proceedings (rule 58.1). One last point is often discovered too late: the award is released to the parties by the secretariat only after the costs of the arbitration have been paid (rule 52.5). A party that has not funded its share does not receive its award.
6. The one million threshold, which decides the procedure for you
The seventh edition of the SIAC rules, in force since 1 January 2025, created a streamlined procedure that applies automatically, without any party asking, where the amount in dispute does not exceed 1,000,000 Singapore dollars before the tribunal is constituted, unless the President decides otherwise on a party’s application (rule 13.1). The secretariat merely informs the parties that the arbitration will be conducted under Schedule 2 (rule 13.2).
That schedule’s regime is severe. A sole arbitrator is appointed. The parties have three days to appoint jointly. A case management conference is held within five days of the tribunal’s constitution. Unless otherwise decided, the dispute is decided on submissions and annexed documents, no application for document production is admissible and no party witness or expert evidence is allowed. The award is briefly reasoned and made within three months of the tribunal’s constitution. The arbitrators’ and centre’s fees are capped at fifty per cent of the scale maxima.
Two provisions complete the picture and are too rarely read. The parties are deemed to have agreed that the streamlined procedure prevails over any inconsistent term of the arbitration agreement, including a clause providing for more than one arbitrator (Schedule 2, paragraph 17). And preliminary determination and early dismissal are closed in that procedure (Schedule 2, paragraph 18). A clause negotiated to secure three arbitrators and a full process therefore has no effect below the threshold, unless the parties have expressly excluded the application of rule 13, which the rules permit by a simple writing (rule 13.3).
7. What a Singapore seat is worth to a French creditor
Singapore acceded to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards on 21 August 1986, France having ratified it on 26 June 1959. One hundred and seventy two States are parties today. An award made in Singapore therefore travels within a treaty network covering most of the economies where a French company might pursue recovery.
French law goes further than the Convention, a point non French lawyers underestimate. Arbitral awards are recognised or enforced in France if the party relying on them establishes their existence and if such recognition or enforcement is not manifestly contrary to international public policy (code of civil procedure, article 1514). The Court of Appeal may refuse recognition or enforcement only in the five cases exhaustively listed in the code, among which setting aside in the country of origin does not appear (articles 1520 and 1525).
The Court of Cassation has drawn from article VII of the New York Convention that an international award is not attached to any national legal order and constitutes an international judicial decision whose regularity is examined under the rules of the country where recognition and enforcement are sought (Cass. 1re civ., 29 June 2007, no. 05-18.053), having earlier held that an award set aside at the seat remains enforceable in France (Cass. 1re civ., 23 March 1994, no. 92-15.137). The consequence is considerable for a French creditor: a SIAC award set aside by the Singapore court may still take effect in France.
8. The two deadlines bearing on contracts signed today
The first is French. Decree no. 2026-741 of 6 August 2026 containing various measures to clarify and modernise arbitral procedure takes effect on 1 January 2027. It removes the requirement to produce the original award, a copy now being sufficient (articles 1515 and 1516 as amended), creates a free standing recognition procedure before the judicial court of Paris for awards made abroad, including incidentally (new article 1516-1), allows documents in a foreign language to be put before the Court of Appeal without translation (new article 1527-3), and allows the court to adapt the reasoning and publicity of its decision to the needs of confidentiality (new article 1527-5).
The transitional law uses a simple test, which must be known before settling a timetable strategy: the new articles on recognition, enforcement and remedies apply to awards made after 1 January 2027, while the new definition of international arbitration applies to arbitration agreements concluded after that date (decree no. 2026-741, article 22). A Singapore award made on 20 December 2026 and presented for enforcement in 2028 will therefore still fall under the texts derived from the 2011 decree, original award included.
The second deadline is Singaporean, and its outcome is unknown. The Singapore Ministry of Law opened a public consultation from 20 March to 2 May 2025 on the international arbitration regime and on the International Arbitration Act 1994. Eight questions are asked, including the introduction of a right of appeal on a question of law available by agreement of the parties, a reduction of the three month period for applying to set aside, a requirement of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, and codification of the method for determining the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. No text has been adopted to date. A company signing today should therefore factor in that the remedies regime may change during the life of its contract.
Frequently asked questions
Can the seat be in Singapore and the hearings in Paris
Yes, and that is a frequent solution. The parties agree the seat and, failing that, the tribunal determines it (SIAC Rules 2025, rule 36.1), but nothing requires hearings to take place in the city of the seat. The award is deemed made at the seat and on the date it bears, wherever it was signed (rule 52.4). A clause may therefore stipulate a Singapore seat and provide for hearings in Paris or by video link. The setting aside court remains Singaporean, which is the intended effect.
Our clause provides for three arbitrators: is that guaranteed
No, not below 1,000,000 Singapore dollars. The streamlined procedure then applies automatically and imposes a sole arbitrator, the parties being deemed to have agreed that it prevails over any contrary term of the arbitration agreement, including a clause providing for more than one arbitrator (SIAC Rules 2025, rule 13.1 and Schedule 2, paragraphs 1 and 17). The only answer is express exclusion of rule 13 in the clause, which the rules allow in writing (rule 13.3). A clause stipulating three arbitrators without that exclusion gives an apparent guarantee.
SIAC or SCMA for a charterparty or a ship sale
The SCMA in most cases. It offers non administered arbitration, with no imposed scale and no scrutiny of the draft award, with arbitrators drawn from shipping, and its fourth edition rules have been in force since 1 January 2022. Below 300,000 US dollars of combined claims, the expedited procedure applies unless expressly excluded (rule 44). The SIAC regains the advantage on complex or multi party transactions that are maritime only in their subject matter, such as ship finance, an owning joint venture or an equipment supply chain.
What is the maximum cost of a five million Singapore dollar SIAC arbitration
About 169,000 Singapore dollars with a sole arbitrator and about 429,000 dollars with three, excluding counsel’s fees, expert evidence and translation. The calculation rests on the scale in force since 1 January 2025: a 3,000 dollar filing fee for foreign parties, administrative fees capped at 36,000 dollars and fees capped at 130,000 dollars per arbitrator at that level of dispute. These are caps. The Registrar determines the costs at the close of the arbitration under the scale and practice notes in force (rule 57.1).
Can an award set aside in Singapore still be enforced in France
Yes, and that is one of the reasons French law is more favourable than the New York Convention itself. The code of civil procedure does not include setting aside at the seat among the five cases in which the Court of Appeal may refuse recognition or enforcement (articles 1520 and 1525). The Court of Cassation holds that an award set aside in its country of origin remains enforceable in France (Cass. 1re civ., 23 March 1994, no. 92-15.137) and that an international award is not attached to any national legal order (Cass. 1re civ., 29 June 2007, no. 05-18.053).