Allocation Of Costs Following Partial Success Under Siac Rules
1. Legal Framework: SIAC Rules on Allocation of Costs
▪ SIAC Tribunal’s Broad Discretion
Under Rule 51.4 and Rule 58.1 of the SIAC Rules 2025, the Tribunal “shall specify … the costs of the arbitration and the Tribunal’s decision on the apportionment of the costs of the arbitration”. This includes Tribunal fees, administrative fees, expert costs, etc., and the Tribunal has discretion to order one party to pay all or part of the other party’s legal and other costs. The Tribunal may consider conduct, relative success, and other relevant circumstances in deciding the allocation.
Key principle: SIAC tribunals generally follow the “costs follow the event” rule — i.e., the unsuccessful party bears the successful party’s costs — but this is flexible and subject to fairness, proportionate success, and party conduct.
2. Cost Allocation After Partial Success
When neither party wins completely (e.g., partial success on claims and counterclaims), tribunals can tailor cost orders:
(a) Apportion Costs Based on Degrees of Success
Tribunals often apportion costs proportionately to relative success on claims and defenses.
Where one party succeeds on its main claim but loses on minor issues, the relative success is weighed when allocating costs.
(b) Tribunal Considerations
When allocating costs after partial success, tribunals typically consider:
Which issues prevailed or failed and the scope of success
Whether party conduct unnecessarily increased costs
Efficiency and procedural compliance
Whether there was settlement offers or unreasonable pursuit of claims
3. Case Law Examples
Below are reported awards and court decisions illustrating how tribunals have allocated costs in partial success contexts under SIAC or Singapore‑seated arbitrations:
Case Law 1 — Swiss Singapore Overseas Enterprises v. SARA (enforcement in Indian court)
The arbitral tribunal apportioned costs to reflect mutual partial success — the claimant failed on its claim and the respondent failed on the counterclaim.
Cost order:
Respondent bore 70% of total arbitration costs and a proportion of claimant’s legal costs, but the Tribunal expressly adjusted allocation to reflect the relative share of effort towards claims and counterclaims.
Takeaway: Tribunal applied a relative success analysis rather than a simple “loser pays all” approach.
Case Law 2 — Planeta Tullio v. Andrea Maoro (Singapore Court of Appeal)
Although not a cost allocation award itself, the Singapore Court of Appeal affirmed the general principle that costs follow the event, unless special circumstances justify departure. This principle underpins how SIAC tribunals allocate costs, including partial success cases.
Case Law 3 — SICC on Partial Awards (CFJ v. CFL) (SICC refusal to set aside partial award)
The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) refused to set aside partial arbitral awards issued in a SIAC arbitration, reaffirming tribunal autonomy on substantive and incidental decisions such as costs apportionment in partial judgments. The decision underscores Singapore courts’ deference to cost decisions made in partial awards.
Case Law 4 — (ICC Awards on Partial Success — persuasive, not SIAC)
Various international tribunals (including ICC) have allocated costs proportionately where partial success occurs (e.g., 70%/30%, 75%/25%). Although not SIAC awards, these are cited by tribunals and commentators as persuasive authority that partial success merits proportional cost allocation.
Examples from arbitral jurisprudence worldwide include:
ICC Case No. 23137/MK: 70% costs awarded to respondent where claimant won on minor issues.
Life Technologies v. AB Sciex (JAMS): 75% award despite partial success.
Phillips Petroleum v. PDVSA: No single prevailing party — costs split evenly.
Case Law 5 — Aguaytía Energy del Peru v. Maple Gas (ICC)
Tribunal ordered respondent to pay 70% of arbitration costs where claimants succeeded on main claims but lost certain defenses — an approach tribunals under SIAC often reference.
Case Law 6 — Tecnoconsult Constructores v. Thyssenkrupp (ICC)
Tribunal awarded 85% of costs to respondents with partial claimant success due to the substantive nature of outcomes — illustrating proportional adjustment beyond a strict winner/loser dichotomy.
Case Law 7 — ICSID Awards with Mixed Success
In investment arbitrations, even when objections succeed partly, tribunals adjusted cost orders to reflect relative success on issues. While ICSID tribunals follow different rules, this mirrors how SIAC tribunals approach partial success.
4. Practical Principles for Costs After Partial Success
Based on SIAC practice and international arbitration norms:
Principle 1 — Costs Follow the Event
The starting point is that the less successful party bears the reasonable costs of the more successful party.
Principle 2 — Relative Success Allocation
When success is partial for both sides, tribunals break down success and apply proportional cost awards, often on a claim/vector basis or by overall success weighted by outcomes.
Principle 3 — Conduct Matters
Tribunals can increase a losing party’s costs share for bad conduct (e.g., delays, excessive evidence, refusing settlement) or reduce awards where both sides contributed to inefficiencies.
Principle 4 — Legal Cost Reasonableness
SIAC tribunals can assess whether legal costs are reasonable, and adjust amounts recoverable — especially where claimed party costs are disproportionate to the work done (influenced by general principles in international cost allocation).
Conclusion
Under the SIAC Rules, tribunals exercise broad and flexible discretion on cost allocation. In cases of partial success, the tribunals typically:
Evaluate the relative success and failure of parties’
Apportion costs proportional to outcomes
Consider party conduct, efficiency and fairness
Occasionally depart from the strict “loser pays” rule
Court and arbitration practice reflects this nuanced approach: rather than rigid formulas, tribunals tailor cost awards to the facts, ensuring outcomes are proportionate, fair and justified based on how the parties performed on each issue.
RELATED Blog
comments