(6 min read)
Our Head of Singapore, Chanaka Kumarasinghe, spoke at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Symposium 2026 today, contributing to the session on “Powering the Region: Arbitrating Energy Transition and Infrastructure Disputes in Southeast Asia”. Chanaka offered his perspectives on handling energy disputes and how the Singapore International Arbitration Rules (“SIAC Rules”) are fit for this purpose. A high-level summary of what he shared during this session is set out below.
International energy projects and dispute resolution in Singapore
The likelihood of any energy project being international in nature and involving parties in different jurisdictions is high, whether on the financing or project performance side. Accordingly, when determining the jurisdiction in which disputes should be resolved, neutrality will be a key consideration. Singapore ticks this box and its world renowned SIAC is an established part of its legal institutions, with arbitrators and lawyers from multiple jurisdictions present in the country.
Coordinated proceedings
Energy projects are performed and financed by multiple entities across different jurisdictions and the SIAC Rules are well suited to cater for any disputes which may arise. In respect of financing, you can expect the banks to insist that the courts (for example, in London or Singapore) should be forum in which disputes are resolved. In respect of project contracts (ranging from operating agreements, lease and operate, EPCI along with various subcontracts), this is where arbitration provisions will be found, with the SIAC rules often being adopted. Amongst these contracts, if liability for performance issues under one contract needs to be determined first before liability under another contract can be assessed, SIAC Rule 17 (Coordinated Proceedings) assists. Generally, SIAC Rule 17 applies to a scenario where the same tribunal is constituted in two or more arbitrations, and a common question of law or fact arises out of or in connection with all arbitrations. It offers flexibility by allowing parties to apply to the tribunal to coordinate the arbitration in any of the following ways:
a) the arbitrations shall be conducted concurrently or sequentially;
b) the arbitrations shall be heard together, and any procedural aspects shall be aligned; or
c) any of the arbitrations shall be suspended pending a determination in any of the other arbitrations.
Therefore, in the example above, where it would be advantageous for a determination under one contract to be issued first, the arbitrations can now be conducted sequentially to cater to this. In determining such applications under SIAC Rule 17, all parties will be heard, and the tribunal will respect obligations of confidentiality. Any coordinated arbitrations would remain separate proceedings and the tribunal should issue separate decisions, rulings, orders and awards in each arbitration.
Consolidation
Energy projects contracts tend to be structured through various interconnected agreements between project companies, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. This is done for various reasons, ranging from having to comply with local content requirements to internal tax considerations. As a result, it is rare that a dispute arises from a single project contract. It is in fact often the case that the performance under at least two contracts becomes relevant.
Assuming the SIAC Rules are agreed in each of these contracts, SIAC Rule 16 (Consolidation) can provide a basis for disputes under these multiple contracts to be determined within a single arbitration. It may be granted where the parties agree, where the disputes arise under the same arbitration agreement, or where compatible arbitration agreements give rise to disputes arising out of the same legal relationship, transaction or series of related transactions. From a practical perspective, this promotes greater cost-effectiveness for the parties as they avoid running separate arbitrations, caused only by multiple project agreements. For large-scale energy and infrastructure projects, where liabilities and obligations are often spread across a contractual chain, this can afford significant procedural and cost efficiencies.
Joinder
Focusing on individual parties, Rule 18 (Joinder) provides a mechanism through which an additional party may be joined to an existing arbitration where certain requirements are satisfied. The Rule allows for joinder where the additional party is prima facie bound by the arbitration agreement or where the relevant parties have consented to the joinder. Applications for joinder may be made before or after the constitution of the tribunal. Depending on the stage of the proceedings, the application will be determined either by the SIAC Court or the tribunal, with all parties being given an opportunity to be heard. The Rule contains safeguards designed to ensure that any party proposed to be joined to the arbitration is afforded an appropriate opportunity to participate in the process before a decision on joinder is made.
The advantages of joinder extend beyond adding another participant to the proceedings. Rule 18.16 provides that, once joinder has been granted, the parties and the additional party may bring claims, counterclaims, crossclaims and set-offs against one another. The advantage this offers to all parties to energy disputes is clear and obvious.
