• Advertise
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    +
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events

Top Stories

  • Shardul-Amarchand-Mangaldas
    Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advised the
  • Leniency-Plus
    India plans to introduce "Leniency Plus"
  • Herbert-Smith-Freehills
    Herbert Smith Freehills advised Globe
  • Income-Tax-Appeal
    Income Tax Appeal not maintainable
  • Tax
    ITAT rules that unexplained cash will
  • ITAT
    ITAT rules on deduction under IT Act
  • Ropes-&-Gray
    Ropes & Gray represents Heartland Dental
  • Karnataka-High-Court
    Banks can't initiate criminal
  • NCLAT
    Adjudicating Authority obligated to
  • Cyril-Amarchand-Mangaldas
    Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas advised Aditya
Confidentiality in Arbitration: Recent Developments in Singapore
HomeArticlesAlternate Dispute Resolution
Alternate Dispute Resolution

Confidentiality in Arbitration: Recent Developments in Singapore

By Legal Era | Law Firm Stephenson Harwood (Singapore) Alliance
17 Dec 2020 4:30 AM GMT

Confidentiality in Arbitration: Recent Developments in Singapore

Confidentiality in Arbitration: Recent Developments in Singapore

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 This article discusses recent developments in respect of the obligation of confidentiality in arbitration proceedings in Singapore. This is especially relevant to parties...

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans



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

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.4


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

In the last few years, the issue of the court's powers to enforce confidentiality obligations has been a source of debate in Singapore. In the case of BBW v BBX & Ors [2016] SGHC 190 ("BBW v BBX"), the Singapore High Court held that the courts have an inherent power to grant sealing orders in support of arbitration-related court proceedings.5 It confirmed that the courts may use their powers to preserve confidentiality-related obligations even in cases which may not be under the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A) ("IAA"), but relate to an arbitration.6 The Singapore High Court arrived at the decision to grant the sealing orders in spite of the fact that there was no express provision of confidentiality in the IAA.

In arriving at its decision in BBW v BBX, the test adopted by the Singapore High Court was whether the need to protect confidentiality was outweighed by public interest and open justice. BBW v BBX, however, did not arise under an investment treaty.




In the recent decision of Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc [2020] SGHC 208 ("Vedanta") , the Singapore High Court had to consider whether the general obligation of confidentiality extended to both commercial and investment-treaty arbitration. 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.8

In Vedanta, the Republic of India sought a declaration arising from cross-disclosure orders in two related arbitrations - one against Vedanta (the "Vedanta Arbitration"), and the second against Cairn (the "Cairn Arbitration"). The tribunals in both arbitrations made cross-disclosure orders of varying degrees. The Singapore-seated Vedanta Arbitration tribunal ordered case-by-case cross-disclosure to uphold the general obligation of confidentiality imposed by Singapore common law, whereas the Netherlands-seated Cairn Arbitration tribunal ordered an open cross-disclosure regime.

The Republic of India sought a declaration from the Singapore High Court that there would be no breach of confidentiality if it disclosed any documents from the Vedanta Arbitration in the Cairn Arbitration.

While the Singapore High Court observed that the considerations which apply to a private arbitration do not apply with equal force to investment-treaty arbitrations and that important issues of public interest and public policy may warrant a different approach given the different stakeholders and the sovereign and public interests implicated,9 it ultimately declined to grant the declaratory relief sought. It upheld the tribunal's decision in the Vedanta Arbitration that the general obligation of confidentiality applies, without distinction, between commercial and investment treaty arbitration, to "all arbitrations but subject to a list of exceptions which are never closed".10

The Singapore High Court agreed with the following important observations of the tribunal in the Vedanta Arbitration that:

i. there is a strong public interest in a degree of transparency in investment-treaty arbitration;11 and

ii. new exceptions may be created depending on the needs of the situation and public policy considerations, notwithstanding that the common law approach is to take a narrow interpretation of public interest and justice exception.12

This is consistent with the approach taken previously in AAY and ors v AAZ [2011] SLR 1093 and BBW v BBX.

The Singapore High Court's decision in Vedanta is underscored by the recent amendment to the IAA to include a provision which explicitly recognizes the role of confidentiality in arbitration.

In October 2020, the Singapore Parliament passed the International Arbitration Act (Amendment) Bill 2020 to amend the IAA to include provisions conferring broad powers on the tribunal and the High Court to give directions or make orders to enforce obligations of confidentiality between parties:

(i) where parties to an arbitration agreement have agreed to in writing whether in the arbitration agreement or in another document;

(ii) under any written law or rule of law; or

(iii) under the rules of arbitration (including the rules of arbitration of an institution or organization) agreed to or adopted by the parties.

The amendment does not impose new confidentiality obligations or set out what the parties' confidentiality-related obligations are. The actual content of the obligations is still determined by common law, institutional rules and/or the agreement of the parties, but the amendment seeks to strengthen the ability of a party to enforce existing confidentiality obligations. This amendment is especially welcome in a world where remote hearings are commonplace, and issues of confidentiality have become particularly relevant in light of diminished physical control by tribunals.


1 Based on the results of the 2018 Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey, Singapore is the world's third most preferred seat, and SIAC is the third most preferred institution.
2 Rule 39 of the SIAC Rules (2016); See also Article 30 of the LCIA Rules (2020) and Article 45 of the HKIAC Rules (2018).
3 MyanmaYaung Chi Oo Co Ltd v Win Win Nu [2003] SGHC 124.
4 AAY and ors v AAZ [2011] SLR 1093.
5 BBW v BBX &Ors [2016] SGHC 190.
6 In BBW v BBX, the court had to consider the fact that the parties to the court proceedings were different to the arbitration proceedings, but given the overlap in the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced in the litigation would compromise the confidentiality of the arbitration.
7 Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc [2020] SGHC 208 at [1].
8 AAY and ors v AAZ [2011] SLR 1093.
9 Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc [2020] SGHC 208 at [117].
10 Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc [2020] SGHC 208 at [165].
11 Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc [2020] SGHC 208 at [167].
12 Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc [2020] SGHC 208 at [168].


Stephenson Harwood LLP is licensed to operate as a foreign law practice in Singapore. Where advice on Singapore law is required, we will refer the matter to and work with our Alliance partner, Virtus Law LLP, where necessary.


Disclaimer – The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the authors and are purely informative in nature.

Next Story
Similar Posts
See More
TAGS:
  • Arbitration 
  • Confidentiality clause 
  • ADR 
  • Singapore 
  • Arbitration in Singapore 
  • Singapore International Arbitration Centre 
  • SIAC 
  • SIAC Rules 
Trending Now
Okram-Prithvi-Singha

Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas welcomes Okram Prithvi Singha as

Shardul-Amarchand-Mangaldas

Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advised the Book Running Lead

Can A Retailer Charge More Than MRP?

Can A Retailer Charge More Than MRP?

Herbert-Smith-Freehills

Herbert Smith Freehills advised Globe Telecom on sale of

Recommended Articles
Can an Arbitral Award Be Stayed Upon Surety and Personal Undertaking

Can an Arbitral Award Be Stayed Upon Surety and Personal

Stamping Out Illegal Streaming Technology – Recent Amendments to The Copyright Act

Stamping Out Illegal Streaming Technology – Recent

The Quincecare Duty of Care Story Continues

The Quincecare Duty of Care Story Continues

Recent Developments and Trends in Diversity & Inclusion in Japan

Recent Developments and Trends in Diversity & Inclusion in

  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2022© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X