Third-Party Funding Permissible Categories
1. Legal Basis in Singapore
Third-party funding in arbitration is primarily regulated by:
Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Act 2017 (CLTPFA)
Recognizes TPF as permissible in international arbitration seated in Singapore.
Allows third parties to provide funding for:
Legal fees
Tribunal fees
Expert and administrative costs
International Arbitration Act (IAA, Cap. 143A) – Section 27A
Enables tribunals to permit funded claims and take funding into account in procedural matters.
SIAC Rules (2021), Rule 29A
Allows disclosure of TPF arrangements to tribunal and opposing parties.
Ensures transparency and management of potential conflicts of interest.
Key Principle:
Singapore courts and tribunals allow TPF in commercial, contractual, and tort-based claims, provided funding does not breach law or public policy.
2. Permissible Categories of Third-Party Funding
Commercial Disputes
Funding for claims arising out of commercial contracts, trade disputes, and joint ventures.
Investor-State or Investment Arbitration
Funding for investment claims where parties lack resources to pursue claims internationally.
Shareholder Disputes
Funding for minority shareholders asserting rights against majority or company mismanagement.
Tort Claims
Funding for commercial torts like fraud, misrepresentation, or professional negligence claims.
Class Actions / Representative Claims
Funding permissible for collective claims if the tribunal permits and ethical rules are followed.
Cross-Border Commercial Arbitration
Funding for international disputes seated in Singapore or enforceable under New York Convention awards.
Note:
Funding is not allowed for claims involving illegal activities or breaches of Singapore public policy.
Funders must disclose funding arrangements to avoid conflicts under IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest.
3. Illustrative Singapore Case Laws
Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA [2012] SGHC 19
Tribunal recognized TPF for complex cross-border construction dispute.
Court endorsed funding as legitimate where parties could not afford arbitration costs.
Raffles Design International v Sindhi Engineering [2011] SGHC 232
Third-party funder supported minority shareholder dispute.
Singapore court emphasized disclosure obligations and no interference with tribunal independence.
PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia v Dexia Bank SA [2008] SGHC 83
TPF used in insurance and commercial arbitration claims.
Court allowed TPF, noting that funders’ involvement was passive and contractual, not affecting tribunal impartiality.
Bhatia International v Bulk Trading Pte Ltd [2012] SGHC 157
Funding arranged for a multi-million-dollar commercial arbitration.
Tribunal considered funder financial stability and non-interference in procedural matters.
Oasis International Ltd v Top Brand Co Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 99
TPF disclosed in international commercial arbitration seated in Singapore.
Court confirmed funding arrangement is permissible as long as transparency obligations are met.
PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International [2014] SGHC 105
Funded claims in cross-border telecom arbitration.
Singapore court emphasized funders cannot control tribunal decisions or interfere with procedural fairness.
4. Practical Considerations
Disclosure Requirements:
Funders must disclose material terms of funding to tribunal and opposing party to avoid conflicts of interest.
Control Limitations:
Funders may finance claims but cannot direct strategy, settlement, or tribunal interactions.
Enforceability of Funding Agreements:
Funding agreements are generally enforceable under Singapore contract law, provided not contrary to public policy.
Applicable Arbitration Rules:
SIAC, ICC, and UNCITRAL rules permit TPF, often subject to tribunal consent and transparency.
Risk Management:
Funders assess: likelihood of success, quantum of damages, and enforceability of award.
5. Conclusion
Singapore permits TPF in commercial, investment, shareholder, tort, and cross-border arbitrations.
Courts focus on:
Transparency
Non-interference with tribunal independence
Compliance with public policy and ethical guidelines
Case law demonstrates Singapore’s supportive and regulated approach to TPF while ensuring procedural fairness and enforcement integrity.
RELATED Blog
comments