Summary

Over the past few decades, Singapore has acquired the reputation of a jurisdiction with a "pro-arbitration" stance: see, eg, Michael Hwang & Yin Wai Chan, "Case Law of the Supreme Court of Singapore in the Field of Arbitration" (2019) 1(2) Belgian Review of Arbitration 629 at 629-631. This reputation rests on, among other things, the policy of minimal curial intervention, the principle that when parties choose to arbitrate their disputes arbitration clauses should be interpreted as far as possible to give effect to that choice and the rebuttable presumption that commercial parties intend to have all the disputes between them decided in the same forum. Nonetheless, parties sometimes agree to refer only parts of their disputes to arbitration, splitting up modes of resolution for sound reasons. In the insurance context, one may find clauses that refer disputes to an arbitrator only if liability has been agreed. Coupled with contractual time bars that are also not uncommon in the insurance context, such clauses can be tricky for the insured, including because a lay perception that the insurance company has more or less agreed to pay up on a claim may not align with a strict interpretation of what is required for a binding admission of liability.

...

Arbitration -- Agreement -- Scope -- Extension of time -- Time-bar -- Section 10(1) of the Arbitration Act 2001 (2020 Rev Ed)