08/04/2025
Arbitral Institutions are key elements of the arbitration system, concentrating administrative and regulatory functions that contribute to the expeditious and efficient conduct of proceedings. While in the past arbitral institutions were understood as a kind of registry, with purely bureaucratic functions, nowadays, these institutions – specialized and composed of qualified and experienced staff – are also entrusted with regulatory and decision-making functions. Thus, arbitral institutions may interpret and apply the rules chosen by the parties, to ensure the smooth conduct of the proceedings, without usurping the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal – which is solely and exclusively responsible for ruling on the merits of the case.
The administrative decisions of arbitral institutions are generally not subject to judicial control or intervention, but may be reviewed by the arbitral tribunal itself.
In Brazil, for instance, the legislation seeks to limit judicial interference in arbitral proceedings, restricting it to exceptional situations, strictly related to the analysis of procedural nullities in arbitral awards.
There is an apparent consensus, both nationally and internationally, that the decisions of arbitral institutions are not subject to direct review by state courts. Such understanding was recently confirmed by the Singapore High Court, which, when called to exercise judicial control over an administrative decision rendered by an arbitral institution, held that such acts could not be reviewed by the Court.
The case involved an arbitration between two companies, initiated in 2024, before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), arising from contracts for the sale of oil. However, prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the parties disagreed as to the commencement date of the proceedings, which led SIAC to rule on the matter and ultimately determine the date on which the arbitration began.
Respondent sought to annul SIAC’s decision before the Singapore High Court. However, the Court dismissed the request, emphasizing two key arguments: (i) SIAC’s Rules expressly provide that the parties waive their right to appeal to the courts against decisions of the arbitral institution; and (ii) SIAC’s Registrar has the autonomy to interpret and apply the procedural rules set out in the institution’s Rules, which includes deciding when the arbitration is deemed to have commenced.
On these grounds, the High Court dismissed the case, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to review SIAC’s decision and classified the challenge as an abuse of process. The petitioner was ordered to pay court costs and damages to the opposing party.
Although the respondent filed an appeal against the decision, this ruling will certainly serve as a reference for similar cases, including for potential issues that may arise in arbitrations seated in Brazil, thereby strengthening the predictability and legal certainty of the arbitral system.
Co-authored by: Silvia Rodrigues Pachikoski, Mariana Dias Sallowicz, Gabriel Rogenfisch Quintans, José Victor Palazzi Zakia and Julia Guimarães Rosseto
