Understanding Expedited and Streamlined Procedures under SIAC Rules 2025: Practicality and efficiency

As the drive for efficiency in international arbitration intensifies, arbitral institutions and their evolving rules continue to play a pivotal role in shaping the landscape. In maintaining this momentum, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) has introduced its revised 2025 Rules, a significant update reflecting insights gathered through extensive global consultation. The new rules aim to modernize SIAC’s arbitration framework in line with international best practices, address emerging challenges in dispute resolution, and enhance procedural efficiency and flexibility.

Among the most notable developments are the revised Expedited Procedure and the newly introduced Streamlined Procedure. While these innovations promise greater speed and cost-effectiveness, they also raise important practical considerations that parties and counsel must weigh with care.

SIAC’s Expedited Procedure has long been a preferred mechanism for parties seeking faster resolution. With the introduction of the 2025 Rules, this procedure has undergone a significant revision, most notably, the financial threshold for eligibility has been raised to SGD 10 million, expanding access to a broader range of disputes.

The Expedited Procedure is designed to lead to a final award within 6 (six) months of the constitution of the Tribunal, and generally involves:

a. Appointment of a sole arbitrator;

b. No oral hearings, with matters decided based on written submissions (unless the Tribunal determines a hearing is necessary or a party specifically requests for it); and

c. No document production or witness examinations, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.

The procedure may be triggered in one of two ways:

a. By party agreement - where both parties expressly agree to the application of the Expedited Procedure prior to the constitution of the Tribunal; or

b. By application - where either party, at the time of filing the Notice of Arbitration, the Response to the Notice, or any time prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, applies to the SIAC Registrar for the matter to be conducted under the Expedited Procedure.

However, it is ultimately the President of the SIAC Court who determines whether the procedure will apply, after considering the complexity of the case, the amount in dispute, observations and preferences of both parties and other relevant circumstances.

Despite the broadened threshold and streamlined structure, many parties remain cautious. The key concern lies in the discretionary nature of core procedural elements, such as oral hearings, cross-examination, and document production. These are not party entitlements but are left entirely to the Tribunal’s discretion, even if it is specifically requested for by any of the parties. For disputes involving contested facts, technical complexity, or the need for witness examination, the Expedited Procedure may not be appropriate, even when the claim amount falls squarely within the threshold, since there is no certainty on whether the core procedural elements will be allowed.

Further, despite its shortened timelines, the Expedited Procedure under the SIAC 2025 Rules does not offer any reduction in fees. The Tribunal’s and SIAC’s fees remain the same as those applicable to regular arbitrations, based on the standard Schedule of Fees. As a result, parties often question the value proposition of the expedited track, paying full arbitration costs while potentially foregoing key procedural safeguards, such as oral hearings, document production, and witness examination. This has led many parties to opt for the regular procedure instead, especially where the dispute is complex or high-stakes, in order to retain full procedural flexibility and control.

As a result, parties and counsel often choose not to opt for the expedited route, prioritizing procedural depth over speed. The revised framework offers flexibility, but it also demands careful strategic consideration based on the specific nature and needs of each dispute.

In its continued push for procedural efficiency, SIAC has introduced the Streamlined Procedure under the 2025 Rules, a new mechanism designed to deliver swift outcomes. This procedure is targeted at low-value, straightforward disputes, with the financial threshold for eligibility set at SGD 1 million.

What sets the Streamlined Procedure apart is its accelerated timeline. The final award is expected within 90 (ninety) days from the constitution of the Tribunal. However, this speed comes with limitations on procedure and evidence, making it a highly focused but constrained process.

Key features include:

a. Exclusively document-based proceedings: the arbitration is conducted based solely on written submissions and documentary evidence;

b. No oral hearings are permitted, unless the Tribunal determines that a hearing is necessary or grants a party’s specific request;

c. No document production, and no fact or expert witness testimony, unless the Tribunal decides otherwise in exceptional cases, after considering the views of the parties.

As with the Expedited Procedure, the Streamlined Procedure can be triggered in two ways:

a. By mutual agreement of the parties prior to the constitution of the Tribunal; or

b. By application made by either party, at the time of filing the Notice of Arbitration, Response to the Notice, or at any time before the Tribunal is constituted.

Once such an application is made, it is the SIAC Secretariat that makes the final determination on whether the arbitration shall proceed under the Streamlined Procedure, after considering the views of both parties.

This procedure is ideal for undisputed or low-complexity contractual claims, where a quick resolution is preferred. However, for many commercial disputes, the Streamlined Procedure may prove too rigid to meet the parties’ procedural needs.

In such cases, parties may opt for the regular process to preserve their ability to conduct oral hearings, request document production, and present witness testimony, critical elements when navigating factually intensive or strategically sensitive disputes.

One notable advantage of the Streamlined Procedure is its cost-efficiency. Under the 2025 SIAC Rules, the Tribunal’s fees and SIAC’s administrative fees are capped at 50% of the maximum limits prescribed in the Schedule of Fees, based on the amount in dispute. This fee reduction offers parties a significant financial benefit, particularly in lower-value disputes.

Despite the increased thresholds and time efficiencies offered by these procedures, many parties are opting not to invoke them, even when eligible. The reason is the lack of procedural depth, which is essential to complex commercial cases and which is either disallowed or discretionary.

This creates a practical irregularity: while the rules offer a mechanism for speed, they do so at the risk of sacrificing procedural completeness, especially where nuanced factual determinations are necessary.

At Triumvir Law, we recently encountered this issue in a matter before the SIAC. The claim amount was well within the thresholds for the Expedited Procedure. However, the underlying dispute involved:

a) Detailed factual matrix,

b) Technical contractual interpretations,

c) The need for cross-examination of key witnesses,

d) Requirement of document production,

e) Oral hearings to examine the intricacies of the claims and allegations.

In our client’s interest, it was imperative to secure oral hearings, document discovery, and witness testimony. Given that these procedural safeguards were not guaranteed under the Expedited Procedure, we made the deliberate decision not to opt in, even though we were technically eligible.

While the SIAC’s 2025 revisions mark a commendable move toward modernizing and accelerating arbitration, parties must approach these streamlined paths with caution and strategic forethought. The efficiencies offered by the Expedited and Streamlined Procedures may be offset by the loss of procedural tools that are critical in complex or high-stakes matters.

About the authors: Anubhab Sarkar is the Managing Partner of Triumvir Law. Sanyukta Agrawal is a Senior Associate Designate at the Firm.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.