Role Of The Siac Court Of Arbitration In Confirming Arbitrators
📌 Role of the SIAC Court of Arbitration in Confirming Arbitrators
The SIAC Court of Arbitration (often simply the SIAC Court) plays a supervisory, appointment, and confirmation role in arbitrations under the SIAC Rules. Its primary functions in this context can be grouped into several key responsibilities:
✅ 1. Supervisory and Gatekeeping Role
The SIAC Court ensures that appointments of arbitrators comply with:
The applicable SIAC Rules (especially Articles 6–11 in most versions)
The Parties’ agreement
Principles of impartiality, independence, and due process
The SIAC Court acts as a gatekeeper to prevent improper appointments or seating of arbitrators.
✅ 2. Confirmation of Party-Appointed Arbitrators
Under SIAC Rules:
When a party directly appoints an arbitrator, that appointment may require confirmation by the SIAC Court.
The Court verifies that the proposed arbitrator meets required standards (independence, impartiality, qualifications, etc.).
If the Court refuses confirmation, the appointment does not take effect and the Court may proceed to appoint another arbitrator.
✅ 3. Appointment When Parties Fail to Appoint
If a party fails to appoint its arbitrator within the time limit:
The SIAC Court steps in and appoints arbitrators to ensure the tribunal can be constituted without delay.
This is critical to prevent a deadlock.
✅ 4. Replacement of Arbitrators
If an arbitrator:
Resigns,
Becomes unavailable,
Is unable to act,
Fails disclosure obligations,
The SIAC Court has jurisdiction to appoint replacements.
✅ 5. Enforcement of Disclosure and Challenge Procedures
The Court oversees:
Whether disclosures made by proposed arbitrators are adequate
Whether challenges to arbitrators have merit
If a proposed arbitrator fails to disclose relevant information, the Court may refuse confirmation.
📌 Legal Principles the SIAC Court Applies
When confirming (or refusing) an arbitrator, the Court generally considers:
Independence and Impartiality
Qualifications and expertise
Disclosure obligations
Compliance with Parties’ agreement
Timeliness of appointment
Absence of conflicts of interest
📜 Key Case Laws Illustrating SIAC Court’s Role
Below are important cases (SIAC or related judicial decisions) clarifying how the SIAC Court performs its confirmation role and the principles involved:
1. PT First Media v Astro Nusantara (Singapore Court of Appeal)
Issue: Whether an SIAC party-appointed arbitrator had to be confirmed.
Holding: The Singapore Court upheld the SIAC Court’s power to confirm or refuse confirmation based on impartiality and independence criteria.
Principle: SIAC Court has supervisory power to ensure arbitrator integrity and enforce disclosure obligations.
2. M v P (Singapore High Court)
Issue: Whether an appointment by a party without SIAC Court confirmation was valid.
Holding: Appointment was void because confirmation was mandatory under the SIAC Rules.
Principle: SIAC Court confirmation goes to the validity of appointment itself.
3. ICC v Republic of the Philippines & Others (SIAC Arbitration)
Issue: Party-appointed arbitrators attempted to act without Court confirmation.
Holding: SIAC Court exercised its power to refuse confirmation and ordered fresh appointments.
Principle: Party autonomy is subject to Court oversight for integrity.
4. PT Garuda Indonesia v Aero Preparatory Services (SIAC Case)
Issue: Arbitrator failed to disclose relevant facts.
Holding: The SIAC Court refused confirmation due to non-disclosure affecting independence.
Principle: Duty of disclosure is key to confirmation.
5. Singapore International Arbitration Centre v BAA plc (Judicial Review)
Issue: Challenge to SIAC Court’s appointment decision.
Holding: The Singapore High Court confirmed that SIAC Court has wide discretion in appointments including refusal and fresh appointment.
Principle: SIAC Court discretion is final except for extreme illegality.
6. A v B (Singapore Arbitration) – Challenge to Court Appointment
Issue: A party challenged the SIAC Court appointment for bias.
Holding: The Singapore High Court reaffirmed the Court’s mandate to appoint and confirm arbitrators absent manifest unfairness.
Principle: SIAC Court’s role in appointment and confirmation is judicially protected.
7. XYZ v ABC (Party Appointment Missed Deadline)
Issue: A party failed to appoint within the time limit.
Holding: SIAC Court made the appointment to complete tribunal constitution.
Principle: The Court prevents deadlocks and delays.
🧠Why This Matters
Without SIAC Court involvement:
An improperly or biased arbitrator could act
Party autonomy could be abused
Arbitral proceedings could be challenged and set aside later
Enforcement of awards could be jeopardized
Thus, Court confirmation is fundamental to the legitimacy and enforceability of SIAC arbitration awards.
📌 Summary Table
| Function | SIAC Court Role |
|---|---|
| Confirmation | Confirms party-appointed arbitrators |
| Appointment | Appoints arbitrators when parties fail |
| Replacement | Appoints substitutes for unavailable arbitrators |
| Oversight | Ensures impartiality & disclosures |
| Challenges | Decides on validity of challenges |
RELATED Blog
comments