Singapore: Second only to London in popularity among arbitrators
The arbitration community is split down the middle on early determination and expedited procedures, a major global survey has found.
Researchers also found that London remained the top seat for international arbitrations, followed by Hong Kong and Singapore.
Exactly half of arbitrators and arbitration lawyers backed expedited or express procedures, while 49% backed early determination only for manifestly unmeritorious claims or defences.
However, respondents who had used expedited arbitration procedures, including paper-only arbitration, “enjoyed excellent experiences” and would be willing to use them again, acknowledging “the need to balance efficiency with procedural fairness”.
London remained the preferred seat for international arbitrations, backed by 34% of arbitrators and lawyers, followed by Hong Kong and Singapore, both with 31%, Beijing with 20% and Paris with 19%.
Factors influencing preference for seats included support for arbitration by local courts, neutrality and impartiality of the local legal system and national arbitration law and a strong enforcement track record.
US law firm White & Case and the School of International Arbitration of Queen Mary University of London based their latest international arbitration survey – they have conducted 14 in all since 2008 – on responses from 2,402 people involved in arbitration around the world.
Almost half (47%) were based in the Asia-Pacific region, 21% in Europe and 10% in North America. There were also 117 in-depth interviews.
Nine out of 10 arbitrators and lawyers said they expected to use artificial intelligence (AI) for research, data analytics and document review.
Saving time was the biggest driver, cited by 54%, followed by cost reduction (44%) and the reduction of human error (39%).
The main obstacles were concerns about errors and bias, confidentiality risks, lack of experience and regulatory gaps.
While respondents generally approved of the use of AI to help with administrative and procedural tasks, there was “strong resistance” to its use for tasks requiring the exercise of discretion and judgment.
On confidentiality, nine out of 10 arbitrators and lawyers opposed making commercial arbitration hearings public.
A majority (59%) backed the publication of redacted versions of awards in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases.
Clare Connellan, a partner at White & Case, commented: “The sustained appeal of London and Singapore underscores the importance arbitration users place on judicial reliability and proactive legislative support.
“Both jurisdictions have made significant legislative advances in recent months, demonstrating a clear political commitment to maintaining their positions as pre-eminent global arbitration hubs.”
Charles Nairac, partner and co-head of international arbitration at the law firm, added: “This year’s survey reaffirms that international arbitration continues to be the cornerstone of cross-border dispute resolution for businesses worldwide.
“In an era marked by increasing geopolitical uncertainty, economic volatility and rapid technological change, arbitration offers the predictability, flexibility, and enforceability that commercial parties need.”
The full report will be published next month.
Leave a Comment