Introduction
 

Singapore and the United Kingdom have long stood at the forefront of international arbitration, each establishing themselves as trusted and innovative arbitration seats. In 2025, both jurisdictions embarked on significant reform journeys. Singapore, through proposed amendments to the International Arbitration Act (“IAA”), and the UK, which following a thorough review by the Law Commission, enacted the Arbitration Act 2025 (“AA 2025”) to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 (“AA 1996”).
 
For Malaysian practitioners advising clients on cross-border dispute resolution strategies, these reforms are not just of academic interest. They shape how parties draft arbitration clauses, select arbitral seats, and navigate interim relief or challenge awards. This article outlines the key reforms, compares their approaches, and offers strategic insights.
 

The UK: Enacting the Arbitration Act 2025
 

The AA 2025 modernises the UK's arbitration framework, maintaining the core structure of the AA 1996 while introducing targeted reforms aimed at clarity, efficiency, and international competitiveness.
 
1. Governing Law of the Arbitration Agreement
 
The question of the law applicable to an arbitration agreement absent an express choice of governing law for the contract has come before the English courts on a number of occasions, and decisions on this question have not always been consistent. The AA 2025 introduces a default rule: in the absence of express agreement, the law governing the arbitration agreement is presumed to be the law of the seat.
 
This codifies the majority approach in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi A.S. v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, giving a predictable fallback where the contract is silent. This is critical to avoid complex and extensive legal arguments before the arbitration can commence.
 
2. Summary Disposal
 
Arbitral tribunals now have express statutory authority to summarily dismiss claims or defences with no real prospect of success. This brings arbitration closer in line with court litigation and addresses concerns about time and cost inefficiencies in arbitral proceedings.
 
3. Arbitrator Immunity
 
The AA 2025 enhances arbitrator immunity in two ways: 

An arbitrator may feel pressured or deterred if they fear personal costs consequences, especially in contentious removals or resignations. This amendment acts to mitigate personal exposure which may otherwise deter well–qualified individuals from accepting appointments, especially in high value disputes. The “bad faith” threshold ensures that arbitrators are not shielded from the consequences of misconduct.
 
4. Disclosure Obligations
 
A statutory duty now requires arbitrators to disclose any circumstances that might give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality. This mirrors international best practices (IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest in International Arbitration) and codifies the principles from Halliburton v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48, namely: 

5. Enforcement of Emergency Relief
 
Orders issued by emergency arbitrators are now enforceable in the same way as those of the main tribunal. This aligns the UK with modern institutional rules and strengthens the interim relief toolkit. Before this reform, the English courts had no clear statutory basis to enforce emergency orders. Parties often need urgent measures to preserve assets and evidence before the tribunal is fully formed. Without a clear mechanism for enforcement these measures are ineffectual.
 
6. Jurisdictional Challenges
 
The court’s ability to rehear jurisdictional challenges under section 67 has been curtailed. Instead of a full rehearing, the courts must now give deference to the tribunal’s factual findings unless manifestly wrong, enhancing finality. 
 

Singapore: Proposed Amendments to the International Arbitration Act
 

Singapore’s Ministry of Law launched a public consultation in early 2025, inviting feedback on a set of proposed amendments to the IAA. These proposals reflect Singapore’s ambition to remain a leading jurisdiction for arbitration.
 
1. Governing Law of Arbitration Agreements
 
Singapore may adopt a different default rule from the UK, namely that the law governing the arbitration agreement will follow the law of the main contract, unless expressly stated otherwise. This reflects the Singapore courts’ reasoning in BCY v BCZ [2016] SGHC 249 and offers an alternative paradigm.
 
2. Appeals on Questions of Law
 
A bold proposal under consultation is to allow an opt in right of appeal on questions of law, provided: 

This represents a potential shift from Singapore’s traditionally final-and-binding arbitration regime, and would introduce a limited, optional mechanism for error correction. Other leading jurisdictions (notably England) already allow this in a controlled way, which some parties view as an advantage. Making it opt-in only balances the interests of finality with legal correctness.
 
3. Extension of Time to Set Aside Awards
 
Recognising the complexities of fraud or corruption allegations, Singapore is considering allowing courts to extend the 3-month deadline for filing an application to set aside an award in such cases.
 
4. Summary Dismissal
 
The consultation explores whether to codify tribunals’ powers to summarily dismiss unmeritorious claims. While such powers are already recognised under the SIAC Rules 2025, a statutory basis could further strengthen their legitimacy.
 
5. Costs in Setting-Aside Proceedings
 
To deter abuse of the setting-aside process, Singapore is considering the imposition of indemnity costs for failed applications. This would reflect a policy stance favouring procedural discipline and efficiency.
 
6. Appeals Process Reform
 
Another proposed change is to require leave before appealing a High Court decision in a set-aside application thereby streamlining the post-award litigation process and reducing delays.
 
Implications for Parties
 
Drafting Arbitration Agreements
 
If opting for UK-seated arbitration, parties should understand the default application of seat law to the arbitration clause. In Singapore, care should be taken to expressly address governing law to avoid uncertainty.
 
Emergency Relief
 
The UK’s enforceability of emergency arbitrator orders strengthens its interim relief framework. Practitioners should weigh this when seeking pre-award remedies.
 
Judicial Supervision
 
Parties who prioritise the finality and autonomy of arbitration may continue to favour Singapore as a seat (especially if legal appeals are ultimately not introduced), while those who value limited recourse to the courts on legal questions may welcome the UK's retention of section 69 (appeal on point of law) in the AA 1996 and Singapore’s potential shift toward optional legal appeals. 
 

Conclusion
 

For Malaysian practitioners advising clients involved in cross-border transactions or disputes, both Singapore and the UK remain highly attractive arbitration seats. The UK offers immediate clarity and procedural innovation through the AA 2025. Singapore, meanwhile, continues to evolve through stakeholder engagement and reform proposals that reflect regional preferences.
 
As the reforms in Singapore take shape, practitioners should monitor developments closely and remain flexible in seat selection, particularly where enforcement risk, interim relief, or legal error correction are live concerns. In this dynamic landscape, informed drafting and strategic foresight are more crucial than ever.
 
 
Article by Louise Azmi (Partner) of the Dispute Resolution Practice of Skrine.