Singapore

Kompetenz-Kompetenz is the universally accepted principle that empowers arbitration tribunals to decide on their own jurisdiction. However, recent decisions in the Indian Supreme Court and the Singapore High Court provide timely reminders on whether and when such jurisdictional rulings can be referred to the local supervisory court. Parties must remember the inconsistency across jurisdictions in timings its challenge to the Tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction. India Section 16 of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the “ACA”) codifies the Kompetenz-Kompetenz. Section 16(5) provides that if a tribunal dismised a jurisdictional challenge then it shall continue with the arbitral proceedings and make an award. Relatedly, section 16(6) provides that a party aggrieved by such a ruling “may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accordance with section 34” of the ACA. In MCM Worldwide Private Limited v Construction Industry Development Council 2026 INSC 425 (“MCM”), the respondent argued that the tribunal’s order rejecting its jurisdictional challenge under section 16 of the ACA constituted an “award” which was susceptible to a setting aside under section 34 of the ACA. In support of its position, the respondent relied on a previous decision of the Supreme Court of India in Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited vs. Bhadra Products (2018) 2 SCC 534 (“Indian Farmers”) which held that an interim award which decided the issue of limitation could be set aside under section 34 of the ACA. However, the Supreme Court of India in MCM distinguished its decisions in Indian Farmers on the basis that Indian Farmers did not concern a challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction, but rather as a distinct preliminary issue. Notably, the court at [11] quoted the observations it made in Indian Farmers where it appeared to suggest that legislative amendments ought to be introduced to defer challenges to interim awards until after the final award is delivered on the basis that “[p]iecemeal challenges likely piecemeal awards leads to unnecessary delay and additional expense”. Therefore, the position in India today is that if a tribunal dismisses a jurisdictional challenge filed by a party, that party can only challenge the tribunal’s decision after the final award is rendered.   Singapore The position is diametrically opposite in Singapore. For Singapore-seated arbitrations, appeals on a tribunal’s ruling on jurisdictional challenges are governed by either section 21(9) of the Arbitration Act 2001 (“AA”), dealing with domestic arbitrations, or section 10(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (“IAA”), depending on whether the arbitration is regarded as an “international arbitration”. Both section 21(9) of the AA and section 10(3) of the IAA provide that if a tribunal rules (a) on a jurisdictional challenge as a preliminary question that it has jurisdiction; or (b) on a jurisdictional challenge at any stage of the arbitral proceedings that it has no jurisdiction, any party may apply to the General Division of the Singapore High Court to review that decision within 30 days of receiving notice of the tribunal’s ruling. The importance of this 30-day period was underscored in the recent decision of DSQ v DSR [2026] SGHC 67 (“DSQ”). The Singapore High Court held that if a party fails to challenge the preliminary ruling on jurisdiction within the prescribed 30-day period, that party would generally be precluded from raising the same jurisdictional challenge to set aside the final award. However, an exception is available where the aggrieved party did not participate in the arbitral proceedings following the tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction. The rationale for this exception is grounded in policy – the law does not compel a respondent against whom arbitral proceedings have commenced to defend its position if it believes that the tribunal has no jurisdiction. That said, this is a “risky course of action to take” as the final award would be enforceable against it should it’s position on jurisdiction ultimately turn out to be wrong (see Rakna Arkshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services (Pte) Ltd [2019] 2 SLR 131 at [73]).   United Kingdom (England & Wales) We consider the example of another prevalent arbitration seat, the UK. The position in UK is similar to that in Singapore and is governed by the Arbitration Act 1996 (“EAA”). Section 31 of the EAA prescribes when a jurisdictional challenge must be made to the tribunal and expressly permits the tribunal to either rule on the issue in an award as to jurisdiction, or alternatively, deal with it as part of its final award. Alternatively, a respondent in an arbitration may invoke section 32 of the EAA to refer the jurisdictional issue directly to the Court, provided that the respondent has the written agreement of all other parties; or the permission of the tribunal. Should the tribunal rule on a jurisdictional challenge in a preliminary award, either party may challenge that award in the England & Wales High Court under section 67(1)(a) of the EAA. Such a challenge must be filed within 28 days of the tribunal’s ruling (see section 70 (3) of the EAA). However, section 72 of the EAA provides that this 28-day requirement does not apply to a party which “takes no part in the proceedings”. It is also worth noting that recent amendments to the EAA introduced in 2025 restrict the Court’s ability to conduct a de novo review of a tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction, confining the grounds and evidence to those that had been put before the tribunal.   Conclusion While India, Singapore and England each subscribe to the foundational principle that arbitral tribunals possess the competence to rule on their own jurisdiction in the first instance, parties to arbitrations need to be mindful that there are differing approaches as to when the courts, at the seat having supervisory jurisdiction, can be invoked. Please reach out to our team if you require advice or information regarding the nuances of international arbitration.     Authors: Akshay Kishore, Director, Duane Morris & Selvam LLP and Mark Ng, Associate Director, Selvam LLC   About Duane Morris & Selvam LLP Duane Morris & Selvam LLP is the joint law venture between Duane Morris LLP and Selvam LLC, with its headquarters in Singapore. By way of its global platform and extensive range of legal services, the firm helps companies conduct business in and out of Asia, the United States, Latin America, the United Kingdom and beyond. In addition to the excellent skills of its lawyers, clients benefit from the cultural fluency and key relationships that the firm has developed over many years of practising law throughout the region. The firm has a presence in the key markets of Southeast Asia, including Singapore, Shanghai, Sydney, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh, as well as an office in Myanmar. Supporting these regional offices, the firm operates a series of country desks for India, Korea, and Japan. It is regularly ranked among the region’s leading law firms by Chambers & Partners, The Legal 500 and IFLR1000.

Oon & Bazul LLP is pleased to note that our Managing Partner and Head of Dispute Resolution, Bazul Ashhab, has contributed an article in the Singapore Law Gazette titled “Evolving Landscape of Dispute Resolution in a More Cost-Sensitive and Complex Commercial Environment.” In the article, Bazul examines the convergence of increasing commercial complexity, heightened client sensitivity to cost, and the growing integration of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution practice. He considers the structural limitations of traditional time-based billing models, and the corresponding shift towards fee arrangements that more accurately reflect strategic input, judgment, and outcomes.   The piece further explores evolving team dynamics, including flatter organisational structures and supervised AI-enabled workflows. These developments, he suggests, allow junior practitioners to assume greater analytical and supervisory responsibilities earlier in their careers, while maintaining the rigour and professional standards expected in complex disputes.   Bazul also analyses the emergence of collaborative “specialist counsel” models, through which smaller and mid-sized firms are able to deploy targeted expertise without sacrificing continuity of client relationships. These models reflect a broader recalibration within the profession, one that privileges precision, coordination, and subject-matter depth over scale, particularly in the context of multi-jurisdictional and technically demanding disputes.   Drawing on his extensive experience advising across the Energy, Commodities, Shipping, and Blockchain & Cryptocurrency sectors, including high-stakes shareholder conflicts and high-value “bet-the-company” disputes, Bazul has consistently demonstrated how disciplined strategy, structured collaboration, and the judicious use of technology can deliver successful outcomes in complex disputes.   This expertise has earned him recognition as a leading dispute resolution lawyer in Singapore, including a place among Singapore’s Top 100 Lawyers in the ABLJ 2026 A-List, and rankings in both the Chambers Asia-Pacific Guide 2026 and The Legal 500 Asia Pacific.   We invite you to read the full article here.

Singapore, 11 May – Global law firm Hogan Lovells has strengthened its Corporate & Finance practice in Singapore with the hire of Partner Eric Tan, marking the firm’s continued build-out of its private capital and finance capabilities in Asia.   James Doyle, Corporate & Finance Practice Group Leader, commented: “APAC, including Singapore, is a key focus for the firm, and Eric’s arrival is a targeted addition which strengthens our finance capability in this critical hub. It also further reinforces our private capital practice in the region. We remain focused on developing our fully integrated global offering across private equity, funds, secondaries and private credit.” Eric is a highly regarded banking and finance lawyer with over two decades of experience advising financial institutions, private credit funds, multinational corporates and private equity sponsors on complex cross-border financing transactions. His practice spans acquisition finance, fund finance, structured lending, pre-IPO financing, real estate finance, margin loans and private note issuances, as well as private equity investments through debt and convertible instruments. Siew Kam Boon, Office Managing Partner for Singapore, added: “We are increasingly seeing Singapore-led transactions structured across multiple layers of capital, with bank lenders, private credit providers and sponsors working alongside increasingly sophisticated corporate borrowers who are actively shaping these structures. Eric has strong experience advising on these types of financings and together with our existing team, we now have a stronger bench to support our private capital clients across the full private capital lifecycle.” Owen Chan, Regional Managing Partner, Asia Pacific, said: “Our upcoming combination with Cadwalader will significantly strengthen our global platform, particularly in leveraged finance, fund finance and structured finance. Eric’s hire strengthens how our APAC practice connects into that platform.” Eric Tan said: “Hogan Lovells’ sustained investment in APAC, together with its upcoming combination with Cadwalader, creates a compelling global finance platform. Just as importantly, the breadth of the firm’s offering allows me to support clients not only on financing transactions, but also across the broader landscape of corporate, regulatory and strategic issues that arise in complex transactions.”

Virtus Law, Stephenson Harwood’s alliance firm in Singapore, has strengthened its Dispute Resolution practice with the arrival of partner Terence Seah. Terence brings with him extensive experience in handling complex commercial disputes, with a strong track record advising clients across a broad range of industries including in the medical, insurance, financial and tech sectors. He specialises in commercial disputes and fraud and white collar crime investigations and defence, and is particularly well regarded for his trial experience. Most recently, he won two high-profile cases, including a successful criminal trial resulting in the withdrawal of charges against a factory supervisor, and a High Court victory in a major conspiracy claim. Terence’s unique combination of technical expertise in financial products and derivatives, together with his experience in large-scale investigations and criminal defence, enables him to support clients with comprehensive strategic guidance. “Terence’s investigations and criminal law experience add valuable perspective to complex corporate matters, strengthening our practice and the service we provide to clients in Singapore and across the region,” said Lauren Tang, Managing Partner, Virtus Law. “We look forward to working with Terence again.”