DNA had commenced several arbitrations against DMZ as a result of multiple contracts for the sale of oil products between the parties. A dispute arose between the parties and DNA filed a Notice of Arbitration (NOA). The SIAC Registrar deemed the arbitrations to have commenced on 3 July 2024 ('the Original Decision'), and shortly after, DMZ filed a response to the NOA stating that the claims were time barred. DNA then asked the SIAC to 'correct' the commencement date of the arbitrations to 24 June 2024, on the basis that the NOA had 'fully or at least substantially complied with the SIAC Rules' which the Registrar agreed to do despite DMZ's objections. Following which DMZ did not make any further submissions or objections to this decision.

Two months later DMZ filed an Application to the Singapore High Court against DNA and the SIAC seeking a declaration that the correct commencement date was 3 July 2024, and that the Registrar's decision was:

1. 'Unlawful' as it was made ultra vires to the SIAC Rules and/or it was made 'arbitrarily, capriciously and/ or unreasonably', and/or
2. Made in breach of the SIAC Rules

DMZ claimed that in accordance with SIAC Rule 40.1 the Original Decision was 'conclusive and binding' on the parties, and the Registrar had no power to review it. This interpretation of the Rules was not accepted by the Court, which concluded that the Registrar's decisions are only 'conclusive and binding upon the parties and the Tribunal.' The Registrar's determination of the date of commencement of an arbitration was an administrative decision, and administrative decisions 'can plainly be reconsidered.'

The Court found DMZ's application to be a breach of Rule 40.2 of the SIAC Rules which states 'the parties waive any right of appeal or review in respect of any decisions of the… Registrar to any State court or other judicial authority' and concluded that DMZ's application was 'effectively a back-door appeal.'

It went onto stipulate that DMZ had acted in breach of the SIAC Rules and that the application was an abuse of process, adding 'even if the Registrar was wrong in his decision with respect to the commencement date, that did not give [DMZ] a right to ask the court to intervene and overturn that decision.'

However, the Court noted that the Registrar's determination was not 'unimpeachable.' The Registrar 'has a discretion to determine when all of the relevant requirements under the SIAC Rules have been complied with, and therefore, when an arbitration is deemed to have commenced. The Registrar must undoubtedly exercise that power in a lawful manner and in accordance with the SIAC Rules.'

The Court considered that it would be fair to invite the Registrar to reconsider his decision in circumstances where it was arrived at due to a mistake of fact or without first hearing from the parties, but that this was not the case in this instance. The Court also determined that it would not be expeditious or economical to require parties to apply to a court to correct a decision by a Registrar such as this.

In dismissing DMZ's claim the Court also ordered DMZ to pay costs on an indemnity basis.

This decision has largely been deemed to have reinforced the Singapore courts' pro-arbitration stance, and is welcomed by those seeking resolution of disputes through the SIAC. Whilst it cannot be ruled out that a court would have authority to revise the SIAC's decisions in the future, it gave helpful clarification that any administrative decisions would only be reconsidered in exceptional circumstances.