Our International & Domestic Arbitration Practice is capable of dealing with complex and high stakes arbitrations, be it international or domestic ones. Our international clientele includes international contractors from China, South Korea, Japan, multinational corporations and venture capitalists from ASEAN countries, the Indian Sub-Continent, the Pacific Islands, South America and Western Europe. We are well connected with foreign practices in jurisdictions such as China, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, Mauritius, Myanmar and Vietnam, and thus able to give you the best possible team and bespoke advice to deal with your legal problems with foreign law elements.

We handle disputes across various industry sectors including the construction, infrastructure, energy and natural resources, international trade, transport, telecommunications and food & beverage industries.

Our team is especially lauded for its dispute resolution capabilities ranging from mediation, litigation and arbitration to arbitration-related litigation such as enforcement of foreign arbitral awards or resisting enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Singapore.

We have experience in arbitration governed by the rules of and under the auspices of arbitral bodies, such as HKIAC, ICC, LCIA, LSAS, MIAC, SIA and SIAC. We also receive instructions to act in arbitration related litigation such as enforcement/ resisting enforcement of foreign judgments or arbitral awards in Singapore and enforcing Judgments or Awards issued in Singapore overseas.  Every lawyer in our practice has appeared before all levels of the Singapore Courts.

Our arbitration practice is led by our Managing Director, Mr Timothy Ng. He was actively involved in the launch of the inaugural Law Society Arbitration Rules and was counsel for the successful party in the first arbitration proceedings governed by the Law Society Arbitration Rules. Timothy is on the panel of arbitrators of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators, the Asian International Arbitration Centre and the Qingdao Arbitration Commission.


We are able to advise and represent clients in arbitrations relating to a variety of matters, including but not limited to: 

  1. Corporate Disputes including those involving fraud and asset tracing;
  2. Commercial Disputes;
  3. Construction Disputes including those relating to ship and oil rig construction;
  4. Infrastructure Disputes including those relating to airports, sea ports, water, power and other industrial plants and highways; and
  5. Matrimonial (only Ancillary Matters).


Some of the cases handled by members of our arbitration practice include the following:

A) Arbitration Related Litigation

– Advised and acted for a Singapore-incorporated worldwide distributor of sports-related content in an application to resist the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award of around US$ 5 million in Singapore. The arbitration which involved several parties from the Indian Subcontinent and the Middle East and an underlying contract governed by the Law of Mauritius, was seated in Mauritius and conducted under LCIA-MIAC rules.

– Advised and acted for a high net worth PRC client to resist the enforcement of a HKIAC award in excess of US$ 130 million brought by subsidiaries of a Fortune 500 MNC. The matter involved issues of foreign direct investment under Chinese Law and the arbitration was seated in Hong Kong SAR and was under HKIAC rules.


B) International Arbitration

– Advised and acted for a leading Thai Beverage And Alcohol Conglomerate in its dispute with its European Joint Venture Partner. The amount in dispute was in excess of US$500 million. The Joint Venture Agreement (“JVA”) was governed by Singapore Law, the seat of arbitration was London and the arbitration was under ICC Arbitration Rules.

– Advised the buyers of a former Singapore subsidiary of a French Company in its dispute with the vendors. The Sale and Purchase Agreement was governed by Singapore Law. The seat of the arbitration was in Paris and the arbitration was under ICC Arbitration Rules.


C) Domestic Arbitration 

– Acted for the main contractor for the taxiway of Changi Airport in its dispute with the pavement subcontractor. The amount in dispute was in excess of S$75 million.

– Acted for the main contractor of an international business park in its contractual dispute with the Developer (a government linked company) over piling works carried out by the piling contractor. The amount in dispute was in excess of S$50 million. The building contract incorporated the Public Sector Standard Conditions of Contract (“PSSCOC”).

– Acted for a specialist piling subcontractor in its dispute with the main contractor of a condominium in respect piling works and other substructure works carried out by the specialist subcontractor. The amount in dispute was in excess of S$50 million. The piling subcontract incorporated the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) Conditions of Sub-Contract.

– Acted for the main contractor of a government school redevelopment project. The plumbing and sanitary subcontractor (“the Subcontractor”) commenced statutory adjudication proceedings against our client for alleged outstanding payments arising from perceived variations. The said adjudication application was dismissed completely. On our advice, the main contractor then commenced arbitration proceedings against the Subcontractor and successfully obtained damages in excess of $2million for delays and defective work. Amount in dispute was approximately $3million.

– Successfully resisted the aforesaid Subcontractor’s application to High Court for leave to appeal against the arbitral award.

– Successfully resisted the aforesaid Subcontractor’s subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal against the High Court’s decision to refuse leave to appeal against the arbitral award.






本律师馆仲裁执行由总经理伍伟强律师领导。伍律师曾积极参与新加坡法律会仲裁规则的首次建立,并也在第一受新加坡法律会仲裁规则管制的仲裁程序中获得胜利。目前,伍先生是新加坡仲裁委员会(SIArb), 亚洲国际仲裁中心 (AIAC) 和青岛仲裁委员会的委员之一。


  1. 公司纠纷,包括舞弊和资产追踪;
  2. 商业纠纷;
  3. 建筑工程纠纷,包括有关船与石油钻井的建造工程;
  4. 基本设施程序纠纷,包括有关机场、海港、水和电等工厂、公路、等设施;
  5. 婚姻(但只限于辅助事项)。



A) 仲裁诉讼

– 代表了一家注册成立于新加坡的全球体育相关分销商,抗制大约价值500万美金的外国仲裁裁决在新加坡的强制执行。发自于毛里求斯并受LCIA-MIAC规则管制,此仲裁涉及了位于印度次大陆和中东的若干当事人,以及一份由毛里求斯法律管治的合同。

– 代表了一名高资产中国客户,抗制超过1. 3亿美金的HKIAC裁决在新加坡的强制执行。此仲裁由一家财富世界500强的几个附属公司推行。它发自于香港SAR并受HKIAC规则管制,涉及了在中国法律统治之下产生的外国直接投资问题。


B) 国际仲裁

– 在一场纠纷中,代表一家领先泰国饮料和酒精集团对应其欧洲合作伙伴,并为该集团提供法律咨询。此纠纷金额超过5亿美金。其合资协议被新加坡法律统治,而仲裁发自于伦敦并受ICC仲裁规则管制。

– 在一场应商纠纷中,为一家法国公司的新加坡附属公司的买家提供法律咨询。此买卖协议被新加坡法律统治,而仲裁发自于巴黎并受ICC仲裁规则管制。


C) 本地诉讼

– 在一场关于新加坡樟宜机场滑行道的纠纷中,代表主要承包商对应其道路分包商。该争议金额超过7,500万。

– 在一场起源于打椿承包商执行的打椿工作所造成的合同纠纷中,代表国际商业园主要承包商对应一家政联公司的开发者。其争议金额超过5,000万。该建造合同包含了公共部门标准合同条件(PSSCOC)。

– 在一场起源于一位专业打椿分包商执行的打椿工作和其余次级结构工作的纠纷,代表该打椿分包商对应一家公寓的主要承包商。其纠纷金额超过5,000万。该打椿分包合同包含了新加坡建筑学会(SIA)的分包合同条件。

– 代表一家公立学校重建计划的主要承包商,其纠纷金额大约300万。负责管道和卫生的分包商因臆想差异指控本客户未付费,并对其施行法定裁决程序。该法定裁决程序被驳回。在我们的劝导下,主要承包商对分包商施行法定裁决程序,成功因工程延误与工作瑕疵而获得超过200万的金额补偿。

– 成功抗制该分包商呈上于高等法院的申请书,从中对仲裁裁决提出上述。

– 成功抗制该分包商对上诉法院提出针对高等法院裁决的上述。