CONFIDENTIALITY IN ARBITRATION: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SINGAPORE

Two recent developments in Singapore case law and legislation reflect a willingness to preserve confidentiality related obligations in all arbitrations

- Germaine Chia,Khyati Raniwala

Germaine Chia

Senior Associate

STEPHENSON HARWOOD

This article discusses recent developments in respect of the obligation of confidentiality in arbitration proceedings in Singapore. This is especially relevant to parties based within the region and particularly in India, who select Singapore as the seat of arbitration.1 Further, Indian parties, being the top foreign user of SIAC arbitration, regularly select the SIAC Rules to govern their arbitrations, which is one of the few sets of rules that imposes an express obligation of confidentiality.2 Contrary to litigation, arbitration proceedings are considered to be private in nature. Singapore has followed the English law approach and has adopted a general obligation of confidentiality in all arbitrations.3 Arbitral proceedings and documents arising therefrom will be regarded as confidential, even where no provision has been made for confidentiality in the arbitration agreement or applicable institutional rules. This obligation is an implied term arising from the parties’ expectations of the arbitration agreement. This duty of confidentiality binds arbitrators and parties and extends to (i) documents disclosed in arbitration, (ii) hearing transcripts, and (iii) awards. The duty of confidentiality, however, is not sacrosanct, and there are exceptions to the duty.

The decision in Vedanta confirms the position that a general obligation of confidentiality arises in common law in all arbitrations unless the parties have otherwise agreed, and this obligation is also subject to certain exceptions