Interviews with Our Editors: In Conversation with Vivekananda Neelakantan, Registrar of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre

Vivekananda Neelakantan is the Registrar of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”). He brings a wealth of experience in international arbitration, having practised in India and Singapore before rejoining SIAC in 2023 as Deputy Registrar.

Mr. Neelakantan, thank you for joining us today! We look forward to gaining insights into your vision for SIAC and the future of arbitration in the region.

1. Could you share with us your journey in the field of international arbitration and what led you to SIAC? What are some of the key experiences from your past roles that you believe will be most beneficial as you steer SIAC forward?

Thank you for having me. It is a pleasure to speak with you. My journey in international arbitration and dispute resolution began about 20 years ago. I spent time in private practice in India as well as in Singapore where I was a partner at a leading law firm. I had the privilege of acting as counsel and arbitrator in a wide range of international arbitrations. In between, I spent an earlier chapter with the SIAC Secretariat, including helping to establish SIAC’s first overseas office in Mumbai.

I returned to SIAC in 2023 as Deputy Registrar and became Registrar on 1 January 2025. It brought together two parts of my professional life: understanding arbitration from the user’s perspective and helping shape the institutional framework within which those users resolve disputes.

Practice taught me that parties want more than elegant procedure. They want clarity, speed, commercial sense, and enforceable outcomes. My focus is to ensure that SIAC delivers precisely that: premium case management, implemented with consistency and judgment, and anchored in due process and integrity.

2. 1 January 2025 was an eventful day for SIAC—you took the helm of SIAC the very same day the 7th Edition of the Arbitration Rules of SIAC (“SIAC Rules 2025”) came into force. The SIAC Rules 2025 contain several new updates and innovations, such as third-party funding disclosures and coordinated proceedings. Are there any new provisions which are particularly close to your heart, and why?

That timing was fortuitous at best, but it has been my particular privilege to work with the excellent Secretariat team on giving effect to the SIAC Rules 2025 in practice.

We are now about 18 months into the use of the SIAC Rules 2025 and in my view, the rules along with the two practice notes and the new code of ethics for arbitrators we published concurrently provide further clarity on SIAC’s case administration ethos and processes.

Two provisions that are particularly close to my heart are rule 34 (issues for determination), and rule 46 (preliminary determination). While they may have attracted less attention than other innovations in the SIAC Rules 2025, they go to the heart of what effective arbitration should be about.

The real challenge in many arbitrations is not simply speed. It is early focus and engagement. Without that discipline, cases can become longer and more expensive and awards can become less focused. Rule 34 addresses that by requiring the tribunal, in consultation with the parties and at appropriate stages of the arbitration, to use reasonable efforts to identify the issues to be determined and record them in a procedural order.

That may sound modest, but it is powerful. A clear list of issues gives structure to the entire arbitration. It helps guide pleadings, document production, witness evidence, expert evidence, hearings, and ultimately the award. It also enhances fairness and enforceability by reducing the scope for complaints that a party was not heard or that an argument was overlooked.

Rule 46 then takes the next logical step. Once the key issues have been identified, it asks whether any of them can properly be determined at an early stage. A discrete question of jurisdiction, limitation periods, contractual interpretation, liability or the legal effect of an agreed fact may not require the full procedural journey. Deciding them early may narrow the dispute, encourage settlement, or in some cases dispose of the arbitration altogether.

Unlike early dismissal, which is directed at claims or defences that are manifestly without legal merit or manifestly outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction, preliminary determination is broader and more flexible. It gives tribunals a disciplined mechanism to decide suitable issues early, while preserving procedural fairness and ensuring that parties have a reasonable opportunity to present their cases.

Taken together, rules 34 and 46 reflect a deeper philosophy behind the SIAC Rules 2025. Efficiency is not achieved merely by compressing timelines. It is achieved by identifying the real pain points in the arbitration process and ensuring that cases receive tailored treatment based on the needs of each dispute. These may be quieter innovations, but can have significant impact.

3. SIAC was one of the first arbitral institutions to introduce emergency arbitration. It has now pioneered the introduction of applications for protective preliminary orders (“PPOs”), the enforceability of which has been much discussed by commentators, including in this blog post. What factors influenced this addition to the SIAC Rules 2025, and what can you share from SIAC’s experience so far?

SIAC introduced emergency arbitration in 2010 and was the first major arbitral institution in Asia to do so. It has since become a familiar and valuable tool for users and we have received and handled close to 200 applications. Of these, all but one has been accepted.

But experience also revealed a narrow gap. In urgent cases, a party may need interim protection before the other side is notified, because notification itself may frustrate the relief sought. Court proceedings may not always be the most suitable first port of call. Parties may have confidentiality concerns, jurisdictional concerns, or simply prefer a solution within the arbitral framework they chose.

The PPO mechanism was introduced to address that limited but important gap. It is deliberately exceptional and subject to clearly-defined safeguards. In 2025, SIAC received four PPO applications, of which one was accepted by the President of SIAC. That is, in my view, a healthy early signal. The procedure is available where genuinely necessary, but is not being overused. The President, with the assistance of the Secretariat, performs the important gatekeeping function of deciding whether an application should proceed without notice to counterparties.

4. The SIAC Rules 2025 also introduced the new Streamlined Procedure for low value disputes, apart from the Expedited Procedure. Aside from their monetary value, have you already noticed any trends in the types of cases taking advantage of the Streamlined Procedure? Can you share any success stories of cases concluded within the 3-month time limit?

In 2025, 60 cases proceeded under the Streamlined Procedure and several awards have already been made under the procedure. It is still early, but we observe that the procedure is particularly suited to document-driven disputes where the factual record is relatively contained and the parties need a final and enforceable determination quickly.

In my view, this is not simply ‘small claims arbitration’. Lower-value disputes can still matter greatly to the parties. We have seen, for example, an international cryptocurrency-related investment refund dispute in which the sole arbitrator rendered the final award within three months from the tribunal’s constitution. That is exactly the kind of case which would benefit from speed and cost control but with the additional full value of the SIAC administration process and scrutiny of draft awards, which can make a real difference.

The real promise of the Streamlined Procedure is predictability. Parties know from the outset that the process is lean: generally, a documents-only procedure, no document production, and no witness evidence unless the tribunal determines otherwise. That discipline makes a three-month award possible in practice.

The Streamlined Procedure has also provided opportunities for up-and-coming lawyers and arbitrators to lead, conduct, and decide appropriate cases under SIAC administration. We are particularly pleased to be working with a wide swathe of next generation professionals from around the world on these types of cases.

5. The SIAC Rules 2025 underwent a year-long consultation between the time the draft and final versions were published. What are some notable changes between the two versions, and can you shed some light on why certain proposals were amended or not adopted?

The consultation process was invaluable because it allowed us to test the rules against real user experience and feedback, and to obtain important input from our very experienced members of the SIAC Court of Arbitration. The discerning reader will note the refinements we made from our consultation draft to the published version of the rules. The process enabled us to ensure that the final rules reflect a careful balance between innovation, our aspirations, safeguards, and real user expectations.

One change I will mention is the amendment we made to rule 60 on the publication of awards, orders, and decisions. The consultation draft proposed that SIAC would publish awards and other decisions in redacted form if no objection was received from parties within a defined period after the arbitration concluded. The feedback we received told us that users valued confidentiality over the aspirations of greater transparency and publication of arbitral jurisprudence. The current version of the rule hence provides that SIAC will only publish awards and other decisions with the written agreement of all parties.

Another example is the PPO mechanism which did not find place in the consultation draft but found strong support in our subsequent consultations with the SIAC Court members and other stakeholders. This led to its eventual inclusion in the published rules.

6. Arbitral institutions are constantly innovating and looking to grow their share of the pie. According to the 2025 White & Case and Queen Mary University of London International Arbitration Survey, the SIAC Rules were the second most preferred arbitral rules (tied with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Rules), attracting votes from 25% of respondents worldwide. How does SIAC plan to maintain or enhance its competitive edge in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond?

We are grateful that users continue to place strong confidence in SIAC. In 2025, SIAC received 886 new cases, its second-highest caseload on record, with 89% international in nature and a total sum in dispute of about USD 14 billion, or SGD 18 billion.

But trust has to be earned case by case. For SIAC, that means three things.

First, procedural excellence: rules that are clear, modern and enforceable. Second, institutional judgment: active but neutral case management by an experienced Secretariat and Court. Third, trust: in our people, in our scrutiny process, and in our commitment to fairness.

Our recent initiatives reflect that. The SIAC Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol addresses a niche category of disputes at the intersection of the worlds of insolvency and arbitration where speed and coordination are critical. The Institute of Ethics in International Arbitration reflects our belief that the legitimacy of arbitration depends not only on efficiency, but on integrity.

We are constantly working on innovations to tweak and improve case administration processes, address pain points, and develop larger initiatives. We constantly engage with our users, arbitrators, academics, industry leaders, and students, to obtain feedback, ideas, and understand what they need and expect. Through our Singapore headquarters and overseas representative offices, we also place strong emphasis on outreach, engagement, and thought leadership. These efforts raise awareness of SIAC and Singapore while creating valuable opportunities for dialogue and exchange.

7. How has SIAC responded to technological change in the field of arbitration, such as the advent of artificial intelligence (“AI”) and online case management? In your opinion, what else does the future hold for international arbitration, and how is SIAC preparing for it?

Technology is already changing how disputes are managed. SIAC’s response has been practical rather than rhetorical. In 2024, we launched SIAC Gateway, our cloud-based case management platform, which supports electronic filing, secure document upload and storage, integrated online payment and real-time case management. The SIAC Rules 2025 are aligned with that digital infrastructure, including the ability to file a notice of arbitration through the Gateway.

AI is the next major frontier, but it must be approached with care. Our position is that technology should support human judgment, not displace it. The professionals involved in the process remain primarily responsible for the roles they discharge, whether as counsel, arbitrator, or institution. We will continue to very carefully explore the use of AI and assess the best approach for us based on our priorities of efficiency, confidentiality, and high quality.

The future of arbitration will be more digital, specialised, and demanding. We already see disputes involving crypto assets, energy transition, sanctions, restructuring and complex supply chains, and will see more involving AI and data. Institutions will be judged by whether they can adapt without compromising fairness and integrity. That is SIAC’s ambition: to remain innovative but principled; global but rooted in Singapore’s trusted legal ecosystem; and always focused on users’ real needs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Neelakantan, for your time and invaluable insights. We wish you and SIAC continued success!

This interview is part of Kluwer Arbitration Blog’s “Interviews with Our Editors” series. Past interviews are available here.