SIAC V. HKIAC: Comparative Analysis of Asia’s Leading Arbitration Forums

Introduction

Regarding the settlement of the international legal dispute the preference for international arbitration to address cross-border corporate matters has surged. Asia, in particular, has emerged as a bustling hub for arbitration, with two of the most prominent entities being the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC). These institutions are renowned for their impartiality, supportive arbitration policies, and high-quality procedural frameworks. Despite having similar goals, they are distinct in key areas, including their approach, expenses, flexibility, and the legal contexts within their respective jurisdictions. This blog seeks to provide a comparative legal analysis of

SIAC and HKIAC to assist parties in choosing an appropriate arbitral institution.

Framework and Institutional Guidelines

Established in the year 1991, the Singapore International Arbitration Act governs the SIAC which draws on the UNICTRAL Model Law. Singapore has garnered a reputation as an arbitration friendly country for its solid legal system, impartial political system and effective judiciary. The SIAC handled 625 new cases of arbitration in 2024^[1] including 59 domestic disputes which added the total dispute value to USD 11.86 (approx..) which highlights the capacity of SIAC to manage varied disputes. On the other hand, the HKIAC is governed by the Arbitration Ordinance of Hong Kong which is based on the UNCITRAL model as well. In the global arbitration community, it too is highly reputed. 503 cases in all were presented to HKIAC in 2024. 352 of the arbitrations were related to 510 deals, resulting in HKIAC’s highest ever caseload.^[2]

In spite of its high reputation, lately the geopolitical developments, especially after the enactment of Hong Kong’s National Security Law have raised concerns about the independence of the judiciary especially on the part of the Western countries. Regardless HKIAC still stands as a strong option for arbitration when commercial disputes arise involving China.

Arbitration Rules: Efficiency and Flexibility

SIAC Rules 2025

The SIAC Rules of 2025 improves the fairness and efficiency of the process. One of the key features of the 2025 Rules is the streamlined procedure which is an important component that fast tracks the settlement procedure and appeals to the parties with a budget. These are institutional rules which are added with the intention to favor low-value or simpler disputes. In relation to conflicts involving Intellectual Property (IP) and technology media, and telecom (TMT); SIAC reinforced its measures for emergency interim relief. SIAC Registrar’s strong award vetting procedure guarantees enforcement and support is provided to third-party funding via financial flexibility. Consolidation and settlement of multi contract disputes are made easier by this regulation, and the registrar handles the administrative judgments which are subject to court scrutiny. Claimants must serve the Notice of Arbitration directly on respondents, with a 30-day response period, prioritizing speed.^[3]

HKIAC Rules 2024

The HKIAC Rules 2024 prioritize party autonomy and have a “light touch” administrative viewpoint. Article-9A encourages diversity in arbitrator appointments, aligning with HKIAC’s commitment to the ERA Pledge for Equal Representation in Arbitration, with 35% of HKIAC-appointed arbitrators in 2023 being female, up from 22% in 2021^[4]. By giving tribunals, the authority to safeguard private data Article-45A addresses cybersecurity concerns. HKIAC also encourages environmental sustainability by reducing their carbon footprints by using electronic files. The Practice Note on Compatibility of Arbitration Clauses of January 20, 2025; protects party sovereignty while promoting integration. The HKIAC also speeds up the process by not evaluating the draft awards as the SIAC does. Party control is enhanced as the flexible fee structure (hourly or ad valorem) and the 30-day response time limit to the notice has been adopted by the HKIAC in this regulation.

Caseload and Dispute Value

In the year 2024, the SIAC managed a caseload of 625 cases which is higher than that of the HKIAC which managed a caseload of 503 (352 arbitration proceedings). Whereas, HKIAC managed disputes valued USD 48.1 million every single administered case which is higher than the SIAC which managed disputes valuing USD 31.55 million on average. HKIAC’s international reach is notable, with 76.4% of its 2024 arbitrations involving at least one non-Hong Kong party and 14.5% involving no Asian parties^[5]. SIAC also attracts diverse parties, with 47.1% of its 2024 cases arising from contracts signed within the prior three years, reflecting its relevance for newer commercial relationships^[6]. SIAC’s top sectors in 2024 were Trade (29%), Commercial (19%), Corporate (12%), and Maritime/Shipping (11%), while HKIAC’s included Corporate (21%), Construction (17.1%), Commercial (16%), and Maritime (16%)^[7].

Cost and Duration

Costs

SIAC’s ad valorem fee system, which links expense to the value of dispute, SIAC is usually more competitive, specially in the three-arbitrator cases. According to the HKIAC’s and SIAC’s statistics report, SIAC’s arbitration fees are less expensive than that of HKIAC, which provides the parties with the option of hourly or ad valorem charges. HKIAC’s median arbitration cost was USD 62,537, with mean costs at USD 117,045, reflecting higher fees for complex cases.^[8]

Duration

SIAC provides faster dispute resolution with its median duration being 11.7 months (based on 2016 data), which is quicker than the HKIAC which resolves dispute in 15 months (based on 2013-2023)^[9]. The SIAC’s speedy resolution procedure applicable for claims under SGD 6 million and HKIAC’s procedure for speedy dispute resolution applicable for claims under HKD 25 million improves the arbitration forum’s efficiency. Data shows that the HKIAC’s emergency arbitrator processed five applications, while the data for SIAC’s emergency arbitration is not detailed.^[10]

Unique Features

SIAC's effective processes and robust emergency relief alternatives make it a good choice for IP/TMT, urgent, or low-value disputes. With Singapore's pro-arbitration legal system supporting it, its fee structure based on ad valorem rates and shorter usual durations appeals to parties worried about costs and timeliness. The Hong Kong-Mainland China Arrangement on Interim Measures, which makes it easier for mainland Chinese courts to preserve assets or evidence, gives HKIAC a distinct advantage in cases involving China. Modern ideals are reflected in its emphasis on diversity, cybersecurity, and sustainability, and variable price structures offer choices for those who seek autonomy.

Choosing between SIAC and HKIAC

Depending on specific needs, parties involved can opt either for SIAC or HKIAC. For budget-strapped parties requiring speedier resolutions, SIAC is more appropriate due to its shorter timeline and lower average costs. For cases relating to China, HKIAC is preferable because of its links with the courts in Mainland China. For complex or high-value disputes, HKIAC is also a good choice because of its flexible fee structures, which are higher than average. While parties looking to promote sustainability and diversity might prefer HKIAC, SIAC is better known for international appeal and has a greater number of cases which makes the venue’s neutrality more attractive.

Deductions

Both SIAC and HKIAC, distinguished arbitration institutions, possess unique advantages. SIAC is synonymous with cost efficiency, speedy settlement timelines, and the mindset to handle a plethora of issues under the SIAC Rules 2025. HKIAC is appreciated for its flexibility, advantages of being in China, and its creative focus on diversity and sustainability under its 2024 Rules. When deciding between SIAC and HKIAC as the premier arbitration institutions to govern their disputes, businesses need to think carefully and consider the nuances of their dispute resolution needs, including aspects like cost, speed, jurisdictional ties, and procedural preferences. Businesses should seek legal help on the subject or visit the official SIAC and HKIAC websites.

Author: Ram Gopal Bhardwaj, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

^[1] SING. INT’L ARB. CTR., ANNUAL REPORT 2024, at 5 (2024), https://www.siac.org.sg/images/stories/articles/annual_report/SIAC_AR_2024.pdf.

^[2] H.K. INT’L ARB. CTR., STATISTICS 2024 (2024), https://www.hkiac.org/our-services/statistics. 

^[3]SING. INT’L ARB. CTR., SIAC RULES 2025, r. 3.3 (2025).

^[4]H.K. INT’L ARB. CTR., STATISTICS 2024 (2024), https://www.hkiac.org/our-services/statistics.

^[5]H.K. INT’L ARB. CTR., STATISTICS 2024 (2024), https://www.hkiac.org/our-services/statistics; SING. INT’L ARB. CTR., ANNUAL REPORT 2024, at 7 (2024), https://www.siac.org.sg/images/stories/articles/annual_report/SIAC_AR_2024.pdf.

^[6] H.K. INT’L ARB. CTR., supra note 4, at 5.

^[7] SING. INT’L ARB. CTR., supra note 1, at 6.

^[8] Matthew Secomb, Arbitration Costs Compared: SIAC, HKIAC, ICC, LEXOLOGY (Aug. 15, 2018), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7a6b6f8e-3b9a-4f2c-8c1b-2b3c7e8f6b4c.

^[9] SING. INT’L ARB. CTR., ANNUAL REPORT 2016, at 10 (2016); H.K. INT’L ARB. CTR., STATISTICS 2013–2023 (2023).

^[10] SING. INT’L ARB. CTR., SIAC RULES 2025, r. 5.1 (2025); H.K. INT’L ARB. CTR., ADMINISTERED ARBITRATION RULES 2024, art. 42 (2024).