Author: Lawyer Zhang Jingxinyue, PRC-qualified Lawyer | Singapore Registered Foreign Lawyer
Note: In international commercial disputes, the fear of "winning the case but never recovering payment" is by no means unfounded. Asset transfers, destruction of evidence, and commencement of foreign proceedings may occur at any time, rendering a final award practically meaningless. In such circumstances, timely and effective interim measures become a key weapon for enterprises to preserve their rights and protect the basis for enforcement. This article focuses on the interim measures regime under Singapore law, and discusses the SIAC Rules and court practice, providing Chinese-funded enterprises with risk prevention and remedial paths. It aims to help enterprises investing along the Belt and Road plan ahead and stay well-positioned.
Interim measures are orders made by a court or arbitral tribunal before the legal proceedings have concluded. Their core purpose is to protect the assets in dispute, preserve the status quo, or prevent irreparable harm. If the opposing party transfers or conceals disputed assets before an arbitral award is rendered, the client may face enforcement difficulties even if it ultimately succeeds. The significance of interim measures therefore lies in intervening promptly before the award, preventing dissipation of assets and preserving the basis for enforcement, thereby safeguarding the effectiveness and practical enforceability of the award.
In Singapore, the courts and arbitral tribunals have concurrent jurisdiction over interim relief. However, the courts will ordinarily exercise their intervention powers only where the tribunal has not yet been constituted, or where the tribunal, although constituted, is temporarily unable to make an effective decision on interim measures, so as to respect the autonomy of the arbitration process.
01 Interim Measures Ordered by the Arbitral Tribunal
An arbitral tribunal has the power under Section 12(1) of the International Arbitration Act (IAA) to make an order or give a direction to any party granting an interim injunction or other interim relief. If the parties choose to apply the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules 2025 (SIAC Rules 2025), under Rule 45.1 of those Rules the tribunal may also require a party applying for interim relief or preservation measures to provide appropriate security to prevent abuse of process. Under Section 12(6) of the IAA, all interim orders or directions made by an arbitral tribunal must be approved by the Singapore High Court (SGHC) before they have the same enforceability as a court order.
1. Types of Interim Measures
Under Section 12(1) of the IAA, the arbitral tribunal has the power to issue interim measures to the parties in respect of the following matters:
(a) requiring provision of security for costs;
(b) ordering the parties to disclose documents or answer interrogatories (discovery and interrogatories);
(c) requiring evidence to be given by affidavit;
(d) preserving, interim custody, or sale of the subject matter of the dispute or property forming part of the subject matter;
(e) taking samples, making observations, or conducting experiments in relation to the disputed property;
(f) making orders for the preservation of evidence (i.e., Anton Piller orders);
(g) requiring security for the amount in dispute;
(h) preventing a party from dissipating assets so as to frustrate an arbitral award (i.e., Mareva injunctions);
(i) granting an interim injunction or other interim measure;
(j) requiring the parties to comply with confidentiality obligations.
2. Conditions for Applying for Interim Measures
Although Singapore has not adopted the Model Law as amended in 2006 (Model Law 2006), Article 17A of that Model Law remains an important reference for the conditions for granting interim measures.
The applicant must demonstrate the following two core elements to the tribunal:
(1) harm that it may suffer if the interim measure is not granted promptly cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages, and that such harm substantially outweighs the harm likely to result to the other party from the measure (Article 17A(1)(a) of the Model Law 2006);
(2) there is a reasonable possibility of success on the merits of its claim in the arbitration (Article 17A(1)(b) of the Model Law 2006).
3. Power of the Arbitral Tribunal to Issue Anti-Suit Injunctions
In addition, under Article 17(2) of the Model Law 2006, the tribunal has the power to grant interim measures to prevent a party from taking, or to order a party to stop taking, actions that may cause actual or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral proceedings. An anti-suit injunction is one such measure.
In Singapore, Section 12(1)(i) of the IAA empowers the tribunal to grant "an interim injunction or any other interim measure". This wording is generally understood to encompass anti-suit injunctions. Therefore, if a party breaches an arbitration agreement and attempts to commence proceedings in a foreign court, the tribunal may issue an anti-suit injunction to restrain such proceedings.
The legal effect of such injunctions has also been affirmed in international case law. For example, in AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] UKSC 35, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that, even where arbitration has not been formally commenced, an arbitral tribunal may issue an anti-suit injunction based on a valid arbitration agreement to restrain a party from bringing a breach-of-contract action in another country's courts.
It should be noted, however, that interim measures such as anti-suit injunctions generally exist only in common law jurisdictions. Most civil law jurisdictions have not adopted the Model Law 2006 and therefore may not recognise the effect of interim orders made by a Singapore arbitral tribunal.
4. Interim Orders of the Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Be Set Aside, but Require Court Approval for Enforcement
Orders made under Section 12 of the IAA cannot be set aside. This is because the setting-aside mechanism under Article 34 of the Model Law and Section 24 of the IAA applies only to arbitral "awards" and does not apply to interim orders.
To avoid confusion, Section 2 of the IAA expressly provides that the definition of "award" does not include orders or directions made under Section 12.
Nevertheless, although such interim orders cannot be overturned through the setting-aside procedure, their enforcement still requires the approval of the Singapore High Court (SGHC) (Section 12(6) of the IAA). In practice, this enforcement mechanism serves to balance the interests of both parties, ensure the reasonableness of the order, and provide the parties with a degree of judicial review safeguard.
02 Interim Measures Ordered by the Court
In the following circumstances, parties may consider applying directly to the court for interim measures:
- The arbitral tribunal has not yet been constituted: if urgent protection is needed to prevent imminent harm, the party may apply to the court for interim or preservative relief;
- The tribunal's interim measures may not be enforceable internationally: under the New York Convention, some interim orders may not be enforceable and may need to be re-applied for in the court at the place of enforcement;
- The interim measure ultimately requires court assistance: for measures such as freezing bank accounts, applying directly to the court can save time;
- The arbitral tribunal lacks the power to issue the relevant interim order: in some civil law jurisdictions, the powers of arbitral tribunals over interim measures are limited.
However, one disadvantage of applying to the court is that it may result in the loss of confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings.
1. Types of Interim Measures
A party may apply to the Singapore High Court (SGHC) for interim relief under Section 12A of the IAA. Under Section 12A(2) of the IAA, the court has power to make orders in respect of the matters set out in Sections 12(1)(c) to (j) of the IAA, including but not limited to preservation of evidence, preservation of property, and the grant of injunctions.
- If the matter is urgent, under Section 12A(4) of the IAA, the High Court may make such orders as it considers necessary to preserve evidence or assets. Such measures commonly include Mareva injunctions (asset freezing orders) or Anton Piller orders (evidence preservation orders). Although the provision expressly refers to the preservation of evidence and assets, because the word "may" is permissive, some take the view that the provision does not impose an exhaustive limit on the types of urgent interim relief the court may grant. Accordingly, where the specific facts support it, the court may also make other forms of interim orders, such as an anti-suit injunction.
- If the matter is not urgent, under Section 12A(5) of the IAA, the court will grant interim relief only where either: it has obtained the permission of the arbitral tribunal, or the other party or parties have given written consent.
- Whether or not the matter is urgent, under Section 12A(6) of the IAA, the court may make an interim order only where the arbitral tribunal or arbitral institution has no power to issue the relevant order or is currently unable to perform its functions effectively.
In addition, if the parties have chosen to apply the SIAC Rules, they should note the emergency arbitration procedure available under SIAC, which may be another viable avenue for interim relief.
2. Foreign Arbitration
Under Section 12A(1)(b) of the IAA, the power of the SGHC to make interim orders applies equally to arbitration proceedings where the seat of arbitration is outside Singapore. This means that, where the arbitral tribunal has not yet been constituted and a party wishes to restrain the other party from commencing proceedings in a foreign court in breach of an arbitration agreement, it may apply to the Singapore court for interim measures such as an anti-suit injunction.
However, under Section 12A(3) of the IAA, the court has discretion as to whether to grant such an order. The court will carefully assess whether the fact that the seat of arbitration is outside Singapore makes granting the order inappropriate or unnecessary. If the seat of arbitration is outside Singapore, or is likely to be outside Singapore, the High Court may decide on that basis whether to decline to make the interim order (Section 12A(3) of the IAA).
3. Conditions for Applying for Interim Measures
Even where the Singapore High Court has the legal power to grant an interim order, the court will still need to assess in practice whether that power should be exercised. In this regard, the court will ordinarily apply the standard established in American Cyanamid Co Ltd v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, weighing the balance of convenience between the parties to determine whether interim relief is appropriate (see the Maldives Airports case). The court will tend to make a decision likely to cause less harm to the overall interests of the parties, even if that decision ultimately proves not to be the optimal one.
In Maldives Airports [2013] SGCA 16, the Singapore Court of Appeal found that the balance of convenience did not favour maintaining the injunction. Its reasons included:
- Monetary damages would sufficiently compensate the harm;
- There were practical difficulties in enforcing the injunction. The injunction was too broad, making it impossible for the Maldives Government to determine the specific measures required to comply with it;
- The injunction was vaguely worded and broad in scope, and enforcement would require an unreasonable degree of supervision over foreign affairs.
The injunction was therefore ultimately discharged.
In addition, under Section 12A(7) of the IAA, if the arbitral tribunal subsequently makes an order that is directly related, in whole or in part, to the original interim order of the court, the court's interim order shall lapse accordingly (in whole or in part, as the case may be).
03 Emergency Arbitration Procedure
Most major arbitral institutions currently include an emergency arbitration procedure in their rules, allowing parties to apply promptly for interim relief before the arbitral tribunal has been constituted. If the parties choose to apply the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules 2025 (SIAC Rules 2025), they may commence an emergency arbitration procedure under paragraphs 1(1) and 1(2) of Schedule 1. Specifically, a party seeking emergency interim relief may file an application for emergency relief with the SIAC Registrar before the formal constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The applicant must serve a copy of the application on all other parties and state the relief sought, the grounds for claiming such relief, and provide a statement confirming that all other parties have received the application or describing the good-faith efforts made by the applicant to effect service. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of one arbitrator. The emergency arbitrator shall, from the date of his or her appointment
14 days to issue an interim order or award, unless the Registrar approves an extension of time.
It is particularly important to note that, in Singapore, once a party commences emergency arbitration proceedings, the Singapore courts will no longer have jurisdiction to make relevant interim measure orders under Section 12A(6) of the IAA. This provision reflects respect for arbitral autonomy and avoids jurisdictional conflicts between the courts and the arbitration process.
04 Enforcement of Interim Measures
The effectiveness of interim measures depends not only on their timeliness but, more critically, on whether they can actually be enforced. In Singapore, interim measure orders made by the Singapore courts are inherently enforceable and may be executed by the relevant authorities. However, if an interim order is made by an arbitral tribunal, how it may be enforced depends on the seat of the arbitration and must follow the corresponding legal procedure.
1. Made by a Singapore Arbitral Tribunal
Under Section 12(6) of the IAA, all orders and directions made by a Singapore arbitral tribunal must be approved by the Singapore High Court before they can be enforced, and they then have the same effect as court orders.
2. Made by a Foreign Arbitral Tribunal
For interim orders made by a foreign arbitral tribunal, the basis for enforcement lies in Part III of the IAA. Under Section 27(1) of the IAA, the definition of "arbitral award" is extended to include orders or directions made by an arbitral tribunal. This means that interim measures issued by a foreign arbitral tribunal may, in principle, be applied for enforcement in Singapore as awards.
However, this enforcement power is not absolute. Under Section 31 of the IAA, the Singapore court may refuse enforcement of an interim order made by a foreign arbitral tribunal on the same grounds as those for refusing enforcement of a final award. Such grounds include invalidity of the arbitration agreement, procedural unfairness, and the tribunal exceeding its authority, thereby ensuring a basic review of the legality and procedural propriety of foreign orders.
05 Practical Suggestions
1. Carefully Choose Arbitration Rules
At the contract drafting stage, Chinese-funded enterprises should give priority to arbitral institutions with well-developed arbitration rules and sound interim relief mechanisms, such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules 2025 (SIAC Rules 2025). Those rules provide an emergency arbitration procedure and a broad range of interim measures. In addition, the parties should expressly designate Singapore as the seat of arbitration so as to make full use of the Singapore High Court's support for the enforcement of arbitral tribunal orders.
2. Make Effective Use of Interim Measures
Before arbitration has commenced or before the tribunal has been constituted, if an urgent situation arises (such as the opposing party intending to transfer assets, destroy evidence, or sue in another country), the enterprise should immediately assess whether to commence emergency arbitration proceedings (such as the SIAC emergency arbitrator mechanism) or apply to the Singapore court for interim relief (such as asset preservation), so as to avoid delays that could leave its rights unprotected. This is particularly important in cross-border disputes where enforcement against assets is heavily relied upon.
3. Ensure the Enforceability of Interim Measures
Chinese-funded enterprises should be aware that the legal effect of interim measures is subject to the legal system of the place of enforcement. In Singapore, interim orders made by an arbitral tribunal may be enforced, but in many civil law jurisdictions—including certain countries along the Belt and Road—interim measure orders may not be recognised. In such cases, companies should formulate alternative strategies in advance, such as applying in parallel for injunctions in the local courts.
Conclusion
In summary, to ensure that arbitral awards can ultimately be enforced, Chinese-funded enterprises should place significant emphasis on the design and use of interim measures in cross-border investment. For Chinese-funded enterprises investing along the Belt and Road, interim measures are a key tool for ensuring the smooth enforcement of arbitral awards. Enterprises should give priority in their contracts to arbitration rules that provide for emergency arbitration mechanisms (such as SIAC), and at an early stage of a dispute promptly assess whether to apply for asset preservation or an anti-suit injunction. At the same time, they should pay close attention to the effect and legal recognition of interim orders in the intended place of enforcement, and plan enforcement routes in advance to reduce cross-border enforcement risk and effectively protect their overseas interests.
If you would like to learn more about interim measures or Singapore arbitration matters, please contact China-Singapore Legal News professional consultants. We can help you prevent risks and achieve steady, long-term growth.
—
This article is for informational reference only and does not constitute formal legal advice.
This article is general information and not legal advice. Specific matters require assessment by appropriately qualified professionals.