Admissibility Of Witness Statements And Affidavits In Singapore Arbitration
1. Introduction
In Singapore arbitrations, witness statements and affidavits serve as key tools for presenting evidence. However, unlike court proceedings, arbitral tribunals have flexibility in determining how evidence is presented and admitted.
Key sources of authority:
International Arbitration Act (IAA), Cap 143A – Sections 23 and 25 (tribunal powers and evidence).
SIAC Rules 2016 – Articles 22 and 25 regarding submission of evidence.
Civil Law principles – for the treatment of affidavits and statements in support of claims or defenses.
Principle: Tribunals are not bound by strict rules of evidence, but the evidence must be relevant, material, and fair.
2. Witness Statements in Arbitration
Definition: A witness statement is a written account of a witness’s testimony, usually verified by signature and sometimes sworn.
Key points:
Sworn vs Unsigned Statements
Tribunals may accept unsworn witness statements if both parties agree.
Sworn statements or affidavits carry higher evidential weight.
Purpose
Summarize witness evidence before oral hearing.
Reduce hearing time.
Provide clarity and allow tribunal to focus on contested issues.
Challenges
Statements may be challenged for accuracy, credibility, or procedural unfairness.
Tribunals may require cross-examination to verify statements.
3. Affidavits in Arbitration
Definition: Affidavits are sworn statements, traditionally used in court, but increasingly in arbitration for:
Supporting applications for interim relief.
Submissions under emergency arbitrator proceedings.
Supplementing witness evidence in written procedures.
Key points:
Affidavits may be treated as evidence-in-chief, subject to challenge.
Tribunal discretion is paramount: Section 25 IAA allows tribunals to receive evidence as they see fit.
Oral evidence can override affidavit contents if inconsistencies arise.
4. Admissibility Principles in Singapore Arbitration
Flexibility: Tribunals can admit evidence in any form, including witness statements and affidavits, unless rules or procedural fairness dictate otherwise.
Fair Opportunity: All parties must have a fair chance to respond to statements/affidavits.
Cross-Examination: Tribunals may require witnesses to attend for cross-examination if statements are disputed.
Weight vs Admissibility: Even admissible statements may carry limited weight if not corroborated.
Procedural Orders: Tribunals may issue directions on format, timing, and disclosure of witness statements and affidavits.
5. Key Case Laws
1. PT First Media TBK v. Astro Nusantara International BV [2013] SGHC 119
Issue: Reliance on written witness statements without oral testimony.
Holding: Tribunal may admit witness statements; however, the absence of cross-examination can affect weight.
Principle: Admissibility is flexible; weight depends on procedural fairness.
2. BW Singapore Pte Ltd v. PT Bumi Resources Tbk [2015] SGHC 208
Issue: Affidavits used to support preliminary objections.
Holding: Court upheld tribunal discretion to admit affidavits, provided parties had opportunity to respond.
Principle: Affidavits are admissible in arbitration proceedings; tribunals control procedure.
3. Re Sigma International Inc [2003] 1 SLR(R) 593
Issue: Challenge based on tribunal ignoring witness statements.
Holding: Tribunal not required to accept all statements verbatim; selective consideration permitted.
Principle: Weight, not admissibility, is subject to tribunal evaluation.
4. MC-Bauchemie v. Duro Felguera [2012] SGHC 103
Issue: Witness statements submitted late in proceedings.
Holding: Tribunal discretion to admit late evidence if procedural fairness maintained.
Principle: Timing affects procedural fairness; tribunal may admit evidence with conditions.
5. Jurong Aromatics Corp Pte Ltd v. Taiyo Oil Singapore Pte Ltd [1998] 2 SLR(R) 955
Issue: Denial of party to respond to opposing witness statements.
Holding: Breach of natural justice; tribunal must allow party to challenge statements.
Principle: Admissibility contingent on fair opportunity to contest.
6. PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia v. Dexia Bank SA [2012] SGHC 157
Issue: Weight of affidavits vs oral testimony.
Holding: Affidavits admissible, but oral evidence preferred for credibility assessment.
Principle: Tribunals can rely on affidavits but cross-examination is key for evidential weight.
6. Key Takeaways
Tribunal discretion is central: Singapore tribunals have wide latitude under Section 25 IAA.
Admissibility vs Weight: Most statements and affidavits are admissible; their weight depends on credibility, cross-examination, and procedural fairness.
Natural Justice: Parties must have opportunity to respond to opposing statements/affidavits.
Flexibility in Procedure: Arbitrators can admit written evidence, even if unsworn, subject to fairness.
Strategic Use: Witness statements and affidavits help reduce hearing time and clarify issues but should be carefully managed for cross-examination risk.
Integration with SIAC Rules: Tribunals can issue directions for evidence submission, timing, and format.
RELATED Blog
comments