When an arbitrator stops acting fairly, stops acting at all, or turns out to have a conflict of interest that was never disclosed, a party to a Singapore-seated arbitration is not stuck. Singapore law gives parties a direct route to the General Division of the High Court to have that arbitrator removed, whether the dispute is a purely domestic one governed by the Arbitration Act 2001 or an international arbitration governed by the International Arbitration Act 1994 and the UNCITRAL Model Law.
This is a narrower and more targeted remedy than setting aside an award after the fact, enforcing a foreign arbitral award once one exists, or seeking an anti-arbitration injunction to stop the process altogether. It is aimed squarely at the person in the chair, and it is designed to let a tribunal be reconstituted before bias, incapacity or delay poisons the whole proceeding. For a Singapore company caught in an arbitration where the arbitrator has gone silent for months, or has just disclosed a prior relationship with the other side’s parent company, this is often the single most practical application available.
This guide sets out what the application is, the statutory basis under both regimes, who can apply, the step-by-step process, the documents the court will expect, likely timeline and costs, what happens once an order is made, and answers to the questions companies ask most often.
What This Application Is
An application to remove an arbitrator asks the High Court to terminate the mandate of a sitting arbitrator, either because of justifiable doubts about his or her impartiality or independence, a lack of agreed qualifications, physical or mental incapacity, or a failure to conduct the proceedings with reasonable despatch. The effect of a successful application is that the arbitrator’s authority ends and a replacement is appointed under the same procedure that applied to the original appointment, so the arbitration itself continues rather than collapsing.
It is distinct from challenging an arbitrator, which is the internal step taken first, usually before the tribunal or an appointing institution. The court application is the fallback once that internal challenge procedure has failed, or where the parties never agreed on one.
Legal Basis
Domestic Arbitrations: Arbitration Act 2001
Where the seat of arbitration is Singapore and Part 2 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 does not apply (broadly, purely domestic disputes without an international element), the Arbitration Act 2001 governs. The relevant provisions are:
- Section 14 sets out the grounds on which an arbitrator may be challenged: justifiable doubts as to impartiality or independence, or a failure to possess qualifications agreed by the parties.
- Section 15 sets out the challenge procedure before the tribunal itself, including the 15-day window to raise a challenge after becoming aware of the constitution of the tribunal or of the relevant circumstance, and the 30-day window to apply to the Court if that internal challenge fails.
- Section 16 allows a party to apply directly to the Court to remove an arbitrator who is physically or mentally incapable of conducting the proceedings, where there are justifiable doubts as to that capacity, or who has refused or failed to properly conduct the proceedings or to use all reasonable despatch, causing or threatening substantial injustice.
“Court” under the Arbitration Act 2001 means the General Division of the High Court.
International Arbitrations: International Arbitration Act 1994 and the Model Law
Where Part 2 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 applies, the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (set out in the First Schedule to the Act) governs instead. The key provisions are:
- Article 12 of the Model Law requires an arbitrator to disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality or independence, and allows a challenge on that basis or for lack of agreed qualifications.
- Article 13 sets out the challenge procedure, again defaulting to a party-agreed procedure or, failing agreement, a written statement of reasons to the tribunal, with a right to request the court to decide the matter if the challenge before the tribunal is unsuccessful.
- Article 14 allows the mandate of an arbitrator to be terminated, by agreement or by the court, where the arbitrator becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions, or fails to act without undue delay.
Section 8 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 designates the General Division of the High Court as the competent court for these purposes, and applications of this kind in Singapore are frequently case-managed through the Singapore International Commercial Court given its specialist arbitration list. This sits alongside the court’s separate power, discussed in our article on staying court proceedings in favour of arbitration under section 6 IAA, to support rather than interfere with a validly constituted tribunal.
Who Can Apply
Only a party to the arbitration agreement, or a party to the specific arbitration where it does not involve all signatories to that agreement, may bring the application. In practice this means:
- A Singapore company that is a respondent or claimant in the arbitration and has genuine, evidence-based concerns about an arbitrator’s impartiality, independence, capacity or conduct.
- A party who raised an internal challenge under section 15 of the Arbitration Act 2001 or Article 13 of the Model Law and had that challenge rejected by the tribunal (or, where no challenge procedure was agreed, a party going straight to court under section 16 or Article 14 on grounds of incapacity or undue delay).
An arbitral institution administering the arbitration is not itself an applicant, although many institutional rules (such as the SIAC Rules) provide their own internal challenge mechanism that typically must be exhausted, or at least considered, before a party goes to court, depending on how the tribunal’s mandate and the institution’s rules interact.
Step-by-Step Process
- Identify the ground and gather evidence. Pin down whether the complaint is impartiality/independence, lack of qualifications, incapacity, or failure to act with reasonable despatch, and assemble the correspondence, disclosures and procedural history that support it.
- Raise the internal challenge first, where a procedure exists. Under section 15 of the Arbitration Act 2001 or Article 13 of the Model Law, send a written statement of the grounds to the tribunal within 15 days of becoming aware of the circumstance, unless the parties have agreed a different procedure.
- Await the tribunal’s decision on the challenge. The challenged arbitrator may withdraw voluntarily, or the other party may agree to the challenge, in which case the matter resolves without court involvement.
- File the court application if the internal challenge fails. An aggrieved party generally has 30 days from the tribunal’s decision to apply to the General Division of the High Court by originating application, supported by affidavit evidence.
- Serve the application on the other party and the arbitrator. The arbitrator whose removal is sought is ordinarily given notice and an opportunity to respond, since the application affects his or her position directly.
- Attend the hearing. The court considers the affidavit evidence and submissions; cross-examination is uncommon but not unheard of where facts are sharply disputed.
- Obtain the order. If the application succeeds, the court orders the termination of the arbitrator’s mandate, and the arbitration continues with a replacement appointed under the mechanism that applied to the original appointment.
Where time is critical, for example where an arbitrator has gone entirely unresponsive and a hearing date is approaching, a party can usually seek an expedited case management conference to compress these timelines, particularly where the matter is assigned to the Singapore International Commercial Court.
Documents Required
| Document | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Originating application | Commences the court proceeding and states the relief sought (removal of the named arbitrator) |
| Supporting affidavit | Sets out the facts, the ground relied on, and exhibits the relevant correspondence and disclosures |
| Arbitration agreement and institutional rules (if any) | Establishes the agreed challenge procedure, qualifications requirements and seat |
| Record of the internal challenge and the tribunal’s decision | Shows the applicant exhausted the agreed procedure, or explains why none applied |
| Procedural correspondence and hearing record | Evidences delay, non-responsiveness or conduct said to amount to a failure to act with reasonable despatch |
| Arbitrator’s disclosure statement (if any) | Central evidence where the ground is undisclosed conflict or relationship |
| Affidavit or response from the arbitrator (if filed) | The arbitrator’s own account, where he or she chooses to respond to the application |
Timeline and Costs
| Stage | Typical Timeline | Typical Cost Driver |
|---|---|---|
| Internal challenge before the tribunal | 15 days to raise, then weeks to months for the tribunal’s decision | Legal fees for drafting the challenge statement; usually modest |
| Filing the court application | Within 30 days of the tribunal’s decision | Court filing fees, affidavit preparation, counsel’s fees |
| Hearing and decision | Several weeks to a few months, faster if expedited or case managed through the SICC | Counsel’s hearing fees; costs generally follow the event |
| Reconstitution of the tribunal | Governed by the original appointment mechanism; typically a further few weeks | New arbitrator’s fees; any costs thrown away by the removal |
Costs of the application itself are usually awarded to the successful party, but a company should budget separately for the practical cost of delay and the fees already paid to the removed arbitrator, which are not automatically recoverable from the other side.
What Happens After the Order
Once the court orders removal, the arbitrator’s mandate ends and cannot be revived. A replacement arbitrator is then appointed using the same method that applied to the original appointment, whether that is direct nomination by the parties, an appointing authority under section 13 of the Arbitration Act 2001, or the relevant institutional rules for an SIAC or other institutionally administered arbitration.
The arbitration itself does not restart from scratch as a matter of course. The newly constituted tribunal has discretion to decide how much of the existing record, evidence and procedural history carries forward, although in practice a reconstituted tribunal will often invite submissions on whether any hearings need to be repeated, particularly where credibility or demeanour was in issue before the removed arbitrator.
Where the removal was for proven bias or an undisclosed conflict, parties sometimes also need to revisit interim directions, procedural timetables and even provisional measures made by the departing arbitrator, since those directions remain valid unless and until the reconstituted tribunal varies them.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can we go straight to the High Court without challenging the arbitrator before the tribunal first?
Generally no, if the parties have agreed a challenge procedure or the statutory default procedure applies; the internal route under section 15 of the Arbitration Act 2001 or Article 13 of the Model Law must usually be attempted first, except where the ground is incapacity or undue delay under section 16 or Article 14, which can sometimes be brought directly to court.
Does the arbitration stop while the removal application is being heard?
Not automatically. The arbitral tribunal, including the challenged arbitrator, may continue the proceedings and even make an award while a challenge is pending, unless the parties agree otherwise or the court orders a stay, so a company with real urgency should consider asking for interim directions alongside the removal application.
What counts as a “justifiable doubt” about impartiality?
Singapore courts apply an objective test: whether a fair-minded, informed observer would conclude there is a real possibility of bias, based on the specific facts such as an undisclosed prior relationship, a financial interest in the outcome, or a pattern of one-sided procedural rulings. Mere dissatisfaction with how a tribunal has ruled on procedural matters is not enough.
Can the removed arbitrator claim his or her fees?
This depends on the terms of appointment and, where applicable, the institutional rules. Fees already earned for work properly done are often payable, but a tribunal or the appointing institution may apportion or reduce fees where the removal was for misconduct or failure to act.
Is this different from setting aside an arbitral award?
Yes. Removal addresses the arbitrator’s mandate while the arbitration is still ongoing, aiming to fix the process before an award is made. Setting aside an award is a separate, later remedy available only after an award has been issued, on narrower grounds under the Model Law or the Arbitration Act 2001; see our guide on setting aside an arbitral award in Singapore for that separate process.
Does this apply to emergency arbitrators as well?
The definition of “arbitral tribunal” under the Arbitration Act 2001 expressly includes an emergency arbitrator appointed under institutional rules, so the same challenge and removal principles can in principle extend to that role, although emergency arbitrator mandates are typically very short-lived in any event; see our separate article on emergency arbitrator applications in Singapore for how that role is appointed and used.
Need Help With This Matter?
If your company is facing this situation, Raffles Corporate Services can assist with the groundwork, ACRA filings, compliance documentation, and coordinating with experienced Singapore law firms. For matters requiring court proceedings, we work with a panel of experienced Singapore law firms who offer cost-effective and efficient legal service and advice.
📧 Email: [email protected]
📱 Call, SMS or WhatsApp: +65 8501 7133
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified Singapore Advocate and Solicitor.
The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services