What this guide covers
SIAC's arbitrator appointment process balances party autonomy (nomination) with institutional quality control (SIAC Court confirmation). Understanding the process — and the 14-day challenge window — is essential for constituting a tribunal parties can trust and for protecting procedural rights.
Appointment process under SIAC Rules 2024
For a three-member tribunal: each party nominates one co-arbitrator within 14 days of SIAC's notice of commencement (Rule 12.1). Co-arbitrators jointly nominate the presiding arbitrator within 30 days of their confirmation (Rule 12.3). If co-arbitrators fail to agree, SIAC Court appoints the presiding arbitrator. For a sole arbitrator: parties have 21 days to agree on a nominee (Rule 11.1); if they cannot, SIAC appoints.
All nominees are subject to SIAC Court confirmation. The SIAC Court reviews the nominee's independence declaration and any disclosures. Unlike DIAC (which is more deferential to party nominations), the SIAC Court actively screens nominees and will decline to confirm where there are justifiable doubts about impartiality — even if neither party has raised a challenge. This institutional quality control is one of SIAC's strengths.
SIAC maintains a "Panel of Arbitrators" and a "Panel of Experts" (for technical disputes). Parties may nominate from or outside the panel. For emergency arbitrators and expedited procedure, SIAC Court typically appoints directly from the panel without party nomination.
Disclosure obligations
Rule 14.1 requires every nominee to sign a declaration of impartiality and independence and disclose all circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts. The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2014) provide the recognised framework — Red List (non-waivable), Orange List (disclosable, presumptively waivable), Green List (no disclosure needed). SIAC practitioners routinely apply the IBA Guidelines to assess disclosure obligations.
Disclosure is a continuing obligation — new circumstances arising after appointment must be disclosed immediately (Rule 14.2). SIAC Court then decides whether the new circumstances warrant any action. A party that fails to raise a known ground for challenge promptly may be deemed to have waived it.
Challenge procedure — 14-day window
A party that has justifiable doubts about an arbitrator's impartiality or independence must file a written challenge with the Registrar within 14 days of: (i) the arbitrator's appointment/confirmation, or (ii) becoming aware of the circumstances giving rise to the challenge — whichever is later (Rule 15.1). The 14-day window is strict — late challenges are generally rejected.
The challenge is determined by the SIAC Court (Rule 15.3). The challenged arbitrator may provide comments. The opposing party may respond. The SIAC Court's decision is final — not subject to court review at this stage. A failed challenge does not prevent the losing party from raising the ground later on set-aside of the award (though this is a higher bar).
Practical checklist
- Nomination deadline: 14 days from SIAC notice — calendar this immediately on receiving commencement notice
- IBA Guidelines review: before nominating, run the proposed arbitrator through the IBA Green/Orange/Red list analysis
- Challenge window: 14 days from appointment confirmation OR from knowledge of grounds — diarise both
- Co-arbitrator nomination: your nominated co-arbitrator will participate in nominating the presiding arbitrator — choose someone who will exercise independent judgment on the presiding arbitrator selection
- SIAC Court confirmation: do not assume confirmation is automatic — prepare to respond to SIAC Court queries about the nominee's disclosures
- Waiver trap: if you become aware of a conflict during proceedings and do not challenge within 14 days, you likely waive the right to raise it on set-aside
What we'd typically advise
In challenging an arbitrator, act quickly and document your position carefully. The 14-day window starts from "awareness" — if you receive information about a potential conflict informally (e.g., from industry contacts), the window may already be running. We advise filing a protective challenge or, at minimum, a disclosure request to the arbitrator immediately upon learning of potential grounds. A challenge that fails at the institutional level may still be valuable: it creates a record for any subsequent set-aside application and signals to the tribunal that you are alert to procedural issues.
Frequently asked questions
Can a party nominate a fellow national as co-arbitrator?
Yes — party-nominated co-arbitrators are not required to be of neutral nationality. However, SIAC Court may consider nationality in selecting the presiding arbitrator to ensure no party has a majority on a tribunal. For a UAE-Chinese dispute, SIAC might appoint a presiding arbitrator from a third country.
What happens if a challenge is upheld against a co-arbitrator?
SIAC Court removes the co-arbitrator and appoints a replacement. The replacement process follows the original nomination mechanism. The reconstituted tribunal decides whether to repeat any part of the proceedings.
Can parties agree to expand or restrict the grounds for challenge?
Parties can agree on additional disclosure requirements or expand the circumstances that constitute justifiable doubts. They cannot contractually restrict the SIAC Court's power to remove an arbitrator where grounds exist.
Is there any appeal from the SIAC Court's challenge decision to Singapore courts?
Not directly — the SIAC Court's challenge decision is final within the institutional process. A losing party may apply to the Singapore courts after the award is issued to set it aside on the ground that the tribunal was improperly constituted (Singapore IAA s.24(a)) — but this is reviewed deferentially.
What is the replacement procedure if an arbitrator dies during proceedings?
Death triggers automatic replacement under Rule 16. The replacement follows the same nomination mechanism as the original appointment. The reconstituted tribunal decides (after consulting parties) whether to repeat any procedural steps — typically, hearings already concluded are not repeated.
Related guides
Published 20 May 2026. General information only — not legal advice. Contact us for matter-specific advice.