Asia ADR Week 2025: Kairos – Seizing the ADR Moment

The Asia ADR Week 2025, hosted by the Asian International Arbitration Centre (“AIAC”) in Kuala Lumpur from 7 to 11 October 2025, welcomed over 300 attendees in person and online across 24 events featuring practitioners from different jurisdictions. The event’s theme for this year, “Kairos – Seizing the ADR Moment”, has its roots in ancient Greek mythology. “Kairos” refers to the ideal or opportune moment to take action, and this year’s theme is intended to reflect the critical moment that the AIAC finds itself at as it approaches its 50th anniversary in 2028. 

The Asia ADR Week 2025 marked the end of a month-long endeavour that involved a number of prelude programs aimed at local practitioners in five Malaysian states, namely, Sabah, Sarawak, Johor, Penang, and Pahang. Day 1 and 2 were half-day events serving as a warm-up for the flagship events that followed on Day 3, 4, and 5.

Launch of AIAC Suite of Rules 2026 and Keynote Address

Day 3 began with the launch of the AIAC Suite of Rules 2026. The new Suite of Rules marks the culmination of a two-year consultative process involving experts in the field of arbitration. It has been curated using input from users, and is being adopted only from 1 January 2026 in order to provide stakeholders with enough time to become acquainted with the new provisions. Some of the key changes include the increase in the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 (the “2026 Rules”) of the maximum pecuniary (amount in dispute) threshold prescribed for the operation of the Fast Track Procedure to USD3 million for international arbitration and RM2 million for domestic arbitration, and the introduction in the 2026 Rules of a dedicated provision encouraging the President of the AIAC Court of Arbitration, parties and co-arbitrators to take into account considerations of diversity when nominating or appointing arbitrators.

This was followed by a Keynote Address by Professor Gary Born (Chair, International Arbitration Practice Group, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP), which was framed around his five “E”s of Arbitration. First, he started by praising arbitration’s distinguishing characteristic, which is the parties’ ability to choose decision-makers with specific subject-matter Expertise. Second, on Efficiency, he underscored the importance of cost predictability and transparency through capped fees and streamlined administration. Third, on Expeditiousness, he lauded the AIAC and other institutions’ fast-track procedures that make arbitration viable even for modest value disputes. Fourth, turning to Enforceability, he reaffirmed the enduring centrality of the New York Convention. Finally, he highlighted the significance of Electronic Ability, referring to the discipline’s ongoing digital transformation from virtual hearings to paperless management.

Panel Discussion: The Tradition and Transformation of Courts of Arbitration

A highlight of the day was the panel discussion on the emergence and role of institutional courts of arbitration, expertly moderated by the AIAC’s Director, Dato’ Mary Lim Thiam Suan. She opened the session by tracing the historical evolution of arbitral institutions, observing how they have transitioned from passive administrators to proactive guardians of procedural integrity. Ms Shanti Mogan (Partner, Shearn Delamore & Co) stated that the AIAC’s establishment of its own Court of Arbitration marked a timely and progressive development that ensures consistency and reinforces confidence among users. Mr Randolph Khoo (Managing Director, Dispute Resolution, Drew & Napier LLC) cautioned that in contemporary practice, the fine line separating administrative supervision from substantive decision-making has grown increasingly hazy. Adding a comparative lens, Ms May Tai (Independent Arbitrator and Vice-President, ICC Court of Arbitration) drew on her experience to illustrate how differing institutional structures nevertheless converge on the same objectives of fairness and efficiency. “A court of arbitration is not judicial in nature, but its very existence signals independence, credibility, and trust, qualities that often tip the scales when parties select their arbitral seat,” said Mr Tan Tiam Poh (Senior Associate, Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill), who offered a user’s perspective. This session was timely as the AIAC prepares to introduce its inaugural Court of Arbitration to strengthen its institutional independence and global standing.

Debates on Double-Hatting and Disclosure

Day 4 featured, among others, two debates, which were moderated by Ms Vatsala Ratnasabapathy (Senior Partner, Zain & Co). Team A comprised Ms Tatiana Polevshchikova (Counsel, Dyakin, Gortsunyan and Partners), Mr Kalaiarasan Rasadurai (Senior Associate, Skrine) and Mr Adrian See Jooi Hong (Managing Partner, Belden), while Team B comprised Ms Vee Vian Thien, Ms Janice Tay (Partner, Wong & Partners) and Mr Lam Ko Luen (Head of Arbitration and Partner, Shook Lin & Bok).

The first debate was on whether the practice of double-hatting in international arbitration is driven by financial incentives. Team A, supporting the motion, argued that double-hatting compromises independence and impartiality, and generates conflicts that undermine confidence in arbitration. They identified financial incentives and the constrained arbitrator pool as key factors underpinning double-hatting, and recommended implementing robust safeguards and disclosure obligations. Team B, opposing the motion, maintained that dual roles enhance efficiency and expertise while preserving party autonomy. They warned that stringent restrictions against double-hatting could restrict prospects for young arbitrators, thereby affecting the community’s sustainability.

The second debate on whether the disclosure obligations of an arbitrator should entail full disclosure explored how transparency should be balanced with practicality. Team A, arguing for the motion, maintained that full disclosure and transparency are key to party confidence. The speakers delved into the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, exploring how the disclosures required under the Orange List honour party autonomy, avoiding surprises at a later stage. Such disclosures, they argued, also allow arbitrators to maintain their dignity and integrity by not having their award challenged due to their undisclosed conflicts. Furthermore, they argued that such practices reduce the chances for challenge at the enforcement stage and minimise the risk of the award being set aside. Team B cautioned that excessive disclosure may create uncertainty and invite frivolous challenges. They explored how disclosure requirements were impractical, unviable, and unnecessarily elaborate, making the arbitrator appear incompetent by assuming that he or she is unable to decide what is relevant for disclosure. They stressed that such unworkable disclosure requirements inflate costs, prolong proceedings, and ultimately undermine the efficiency that parties seek in arbitration. By dissecting double-hatting and disclosure with rigour and balance, the two debates not only exposed entrenched risks, but also highlighted viable reforms and forward-looking rules that could fortify trust and sustain talent.

Insights From Construction Disputes

Day 5 of the conference began with Justice Philip Jeyaretnam (President, Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”)), speaking on the technically intricate theme of expert evidence in construction disputes. He drew on his judicial experience to highlight how crucial early and effective case management is in determining the use of expert testimony. He emphasised that procedural guidelines need to be customised to the nature and complexity of each case. While expounding on SICC’s Technology, Infrastructure and Construction List, he noted that expert evidence is admitted only when the need is amply demonstrated. In addition, Justice Jeyaretnam promoted the use of expert committees, expert conferences, and joint statements as organised procedures to narrow the scope of discussions and expedite proceedings. He summarised by stating that judges, counsel and experts require sustained discipline to effectively manage expert evidence.

A captivating culmination for the weeklong deliberations was the fireside chat on Malaysia’s SMART Tunnel dispute, moderated by Mr Foo Joon Liang (Partner, Gan Partnership). The session brought together an eminent panel comprising Dato’ Mary Lim Thiam Suan, YA Dato’ Lim Chong Fong (Judge, Court of Appeal of Malaysia), Mr Yatiswara Ramachandran (Managing Partner, Yatiswara, Ng & Chan) and Mr Rajendra Navaratnam (Partner, Azman Davidson & Co). The SMART Tunnel was a major construction undertaking, envisioned for flood and traffic management in Kuala Lumpur. However, behind this engineering marvel lay a complex legal dispute. Mr Foo began by providing an outline for the case from its inception before the Dispute Adjudication Board (“DAB”) to arbitration, and ultimately moving to the Civil Courts. Mr Yatiswara dissected the contractual underpinnings and the grounds for termination, while Dato’ Mary shed light on DAB’s procedural dynamics and the indispensable role of technical expertise in resolving construction disputes. The panel reflected on the challenges of deploying the “chess clock” in highly technical hearings, emphasising the need for judicial capacity-building and sectoral specialisation. After delving into the annulment of arbitral awards under Section 37 of the Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005 and the appeals against arbitral awards on questions of law under the (repealed) Section 42, the conversation concluded with Dato’ Mary’s reminder of public law’s enduring role in defending principles of natural justice.

Conclusion

As the echoes of the month-long programme begin to fade, the significance of this year’s theme, i.e., Kairos – Seizing the ADR Moment, feels ever more resonant. The AIAC plays a multitude of roles. Among others, the AIAC is the administrative authority under the Malaysian Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012, which oversees more than 600 cases annually. The AIAC also administers mediation under its own set of Mediation Rules, and is the Kuala Lumpur office for the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre. Through its diverse mandates, the AIAC has continually demonstrated its versatility as an ADR institution.

Building on its legacy, the AIAC now turns to its next frontier, which is to become a truly international organisation. A significant step in this direction is the establishment of the AIAC Court of Arbitration, which will comprise members who represent the diversity of the region and provide multi-jurisdictional experience. The authors believe that this development is the AIAC’s Kairos, as the Court promises enhanced checks and balances, greater neutrality, and deeper transparency in decision-making.