top of page
Search

Navigating disputes amid rising construction demand in Singapore

  • cclawchambers
  • Jul 22
  • 18 min read

Christopher Chuah Law Chambers LLC

10 July 2025


This article was first published on Global Arbitration Review in July 2025; for further in-depth analysis, please visit the GAR - The Asia-Pacific Arbitration Review 2026.

ree

In summary

The construction industry in Singapore is essential to its economic growth and urban development. However, with the complexity of construction projects and diverse profiles and interests of stakeholders, disputes inevitably arise – often over contracts, timelines or project scopes. Therefore, having a wide range of effective dispute resolution mechanisms for various situations is crucial to maintaining business efficacy, fostering trust in commercial relationships and mitigating financial and reputational risks. As the construction industry in Singapore continues to evolve with advancing technologies and ambitious projects, having structured processes such as arbitration, adjudication or mediation ensures conflicts are resolved swiftly and equitably. This not only sustains industry stability but also reinforces Singapore's global reputation for professionalism and resilience.


Discussion points

  • Interplay and relationship between various dispute resolution mechanisms available to construction parties in Singapore

  • Growing adoption by construction parties of alternative dispute resolution processes such as mediation, neutral evaluation and dispute boards as Singapore shifts emphasis towards collaborative contracting

  • The role of adjudication as a temporarily binding procedure in the final resolution of disputes between construction parties

  • Arbitration as the key contentious dispute resolution mechanism adopted across the construction industry


Referenced in this article


Rising construction demand in Singapore

The demand for construction works in 2025 in Singapore is expected to remain robust. This anticipated growth is driven by a combination of large-scale development projects and a steady pipeline of public and private sector initiatives. According to the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), the total construction demand, which includes the value of building contracts to be awarded, is expected to range between S$47 billion and S$53 billion in nominal terms.[1] This strong demand for construction services is underpinned by significant large-scale projects such as the new Changi Airport Terminal 5, the expansion of Marina Bay Sands Integrated Resort, and various public housing developments.[2] A decent economic outlook has also been projected in 2025, with the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) projecting Singapore's GDP growth to be between 1 per cent and 3 per cent in 2025.[3] This underlying economic growth further supports the construction sector's upward trajectory.


In large-scale infrastructure and building projects, disputes tend to involve various complicated issues. Such a predicament is unsurprising, given the multifaceted nature of construction projects that involve numerous stakeholders with a gamut of various interests. Underlying these commercial complexities, parties’ rights and obligations are governed by sophisticated contractual agreements. These intricacies make effective dispute resolution mechanisms pivotal for ensuring that parties’ commercial and policy interests are met, including meeting project timelines and budgets.


This article outlines the different forums available in Singapore for resolving disputes in infrastructural, construction and engineering disputes. This includes a discussion of new frameworks that have more recently been introduced in order to address, navigate and tackle complex disputes, often featuring multi-party involvement.


Arbitration

Over the past decade or so, Singapore has developed a reputation for being an international arbitration hub. With Singapore’s robust legal framework, commercial openness and consistent commitment to fostering a pro-arbitration stance, the city-state has become one of the most internationally preferred venues for resolving disputes in arbitration.


Statistics underscore Singapore's prominence in the arbitration landscape. In 2024, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) reported handling 625 new cases, and 91 per cent of such cases were of an international nature. Of this, disputes from the construction, infrastructure and engineering sector account for 11 per cent (67 cases). Not only does this underline the confidence of multinational parties in the robustness of Singapore's arbitration landscape, but it also shows that construction firms have a profound willingness to resolve their disputes in arbitration. Remarkably, the total value of disputes in the SIAC reached US$11.86 billion, highlighting the economic significance of arbitration in Singapore.[4]


The diversity of parties’ profiles involved in SIAC cases is another testament to arbitration’s global appeal. In 2024, parties from 72 jurisdictions participated in SIAC-administered arbitrations.[5] This set a new record. Such geographical diversity highlights Singapore's global reputation as a reliable and impartial seat for dispute resolution.


Arbitration continues to stand as the preferred mode of dispute resolution in Singapore for construction projects. Amongst the reasons for its continued popularity include arbitration as the established and accepted forum for dispute resolution within widely adopted standard form construction contracts, the availability of construction experts with specialised knowledge on the panel of arbitrators and the confidentiality accorded to arbitral proceedings.


Arbitration clauses in construction contracts

Arbitration clauses are a staple in most construction contracts in Singapore. Standard form contracts, such as those issued by the Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA), the Public Sector Standard Conditions of Contract (PSSCOC) and the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore (REDAS), incorporate arbitration agreements. For international projects, the FIDIC (International Federation of Consulting Engineers) conditions also include arbitration clauses. Even bespoke construction contracts tend to feature arbitration clauses. This phenomenon reflects the industry's preference for arbitration as the primary mode of dispute resolution for higher-value contentious matters. The inclusion of arbitration clauses ensures that disputes and differences arising from the building project governed by the contract are fully and finally resolved through arbitration.


Panel of Arbitrators & Confidential Nature of Arbitration

SIAC, which is widely regarded as the leading arbitral institution in Singapore, maintains an experienced international panel of over 600 expert arbitrators from over 40 jurisdictions. Over 100 of these are arbitrators in the areas of energy, engineering procurement and construction.[6] The confidentiality of arbitration proceedings enshrined in Singapore’s laws ensures that the details of parties and their disputes, which usually include sensitive commercial and project information and financial data, remain private. This invariably allows parties to maintain professional and business relationships, and preserve reputations. The confidentiality safeguards afforded from public scrutiny in arbitration is vital to parties’ choice of arbitration as their preferred dispute resolution mechanism for complex matters.


Minimal judicial interference

Singapore's judiciary has consistently upheld a pro-arbitration approach, as reflected in numerous written judgments on various issues.


A prominent example of the courts’ supportive stance towards arbitration is their consistent reinforcement of the principle of minimal judicial interference in arbitration matters. Under the International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA), the courts are empowered to stay court proceedings in favour of arbitration, unless the arbitration agreement is ‘null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed’.[7] This ‘unless’ condition is a very high threshold to fulfil. This principle ensures that parties are held to their agreement to arbitrate and discourages attempts to circumvent arbitration clauses through litigation.


Another instance of minimal judicial intervention is the Singapore courts’ inclination to uphold and enforce arbitration clauses. The courts have demonstrated a readiness to interpret problematic arbitration clauses in a manner that honours and preserves the parties' intention to arbitrate. One such example is the case of Shanghai Xinan Screenwall Building & Decoration Co, Ltd v Great Wall [2022] SGHC 58. Here, the Singapore High Court upheld an arbitration clause that incorrectly identified the arbitral institution as the non-existent ‘China International Arbitration Center’, interpreting it as an agreement to arbitrate under the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). Similarly, in FirstLink Investments Corp Ltd v GT Payment Pte Ltd [2014] SGHCR 12, the court held that an international arbitration agreement referencing an arbitral institution's rules rather than national law could still be enforceable. These cases illustrate highlight the judiciary's commitment to respecting parties’ arbitration agreements, even in the presence of deficiencies.


Further, when a party seeks to set aside an arbitral award, the Singapore Courts’ general position would be to read the award supportively such that it would be upheld (CNQ v CNR [2022] 4 SLR 1150 at [49]). Indeed, the Singapore Court of Appeal in China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and another [2020] 1 SLR 695 at [87] has held that the threshold for setting aside an arbitral award for a breach of natural justice is so high that the Court would only find the threshold crossed in ‘exceptional cases’.


SIAC Rules 2025: key updates

Singapore's efforts to position itself as a leading arbitration hub have been instrumental, specifically in the growth of construction arbitration. SIAC continues to consistently innovate and streamline its rules and procedures to remain relevant and updated in line with international trends and developments. This includes embracing digitisation for case management and payment, aligning with the evolving needs of users. The recent launch of the 7th Edition of the SIAC Rules in 2025[8] features some key changes, which include the following.

  • Streamlined procedure: for disputes with an amount not exceeding S$1 million, parties would mandatorily fall under the streamlined procedure. The streamlined procedure eliminates document production requests and witness evidence unless deemed necessary by the tribunal. A sole arbitrator is appointed, and the final award is issued within three months of the tribunal's constitution. This development is expected to increase the number of lower-value arbitrations that can be resolved efficiently.[9]

  • Enhanced expedited procedure: parties may apply for expedited arbitration for disputes not exceeding S$10 million. This was increased from the previous threshold of S$6 million. The expedited procedure provides a fast-track mechanism for complex disputes requiring more urgent resolution – specifically, it allows for limited document production and witness evidence, and the final award must be issued within six months of the tribunal’s constitution.[10]

  • Preliminary determinations: the tribunal’s power to issue binding preliminary determinations has been formally codified. This allows arbitrators to resolve specific legal or factual issues early in the proceedings, potentially eliminating the further determination of other issues. This provision instils confidence in parties and tribunals to leverage procedural mechanisms for efficiency.[11]

  • Third-party funding regulations: the rules now formally recognise third-party funding agreements. This potentially enhances Singapore’s attraction as an arbitration hub by increasing accessibility, as it allows financially constrained parties to pursue high-value arbitrations without bearing the full burden of legal costs.[12]

  • Electronic case management: the introduction of SIAC Gateway, which is a centralised digital platform, streamlines document submission and communication. This comports with the modern reality of digitisation in the administration of arbitration in Singapore.[13]


Statutory adjudication

The Building and Construction Industry Security of Payments Act 2004 (SOP Act) was introduced in Singapore to enhance cash flow efficiency within the construction sector. It provides a statutory mechanism for parties in the building and construction industry to resolve payment disputes quickly.


Adjudication under the SOP Act as a dispute resolution mechanism is exclusive to the construction industry – no other industry in Singapore shares a similar legal framework for dispute resolution. Given the complexity and long payment cycles associated with construction projects, the SOP Act aims to ensure that contractors, subcontractors and suppliers receive payments without unnecessary delays caused by disputes over work done.


Statutory adjudication is often described as ‘rough and ready justice’, focusing on quick and low-cost resolution rather than detailed scrutiny into substantiation of claims. It applies a prima facie standard of proof, which is a lower standard of proof than the stricter balance of probabilities standard typically used in arbitration or litigation. Claimants would thus more easily be allowed to recover monies from payment respondents through the adjudication process. The mechanism is designed to provide temporary finality, as opposed to a full and final resolution of the disputed matters. In other words, adjudication determinations are binding upon parties until the dispute is fully resolved in court or arbitration.


The role of adjudication in the Singapore construction industry

Given the quick and efficient manner in which disputes can be resolved, adjudication has become a widely utilised method of dispute resolution for downstream construction parties, such as subcontractors and suppliers, to recover payments for completed work. The strict timelines stipulated by the SOP Act ensure disputes are resolved swiftly. Indeed, tight and stringent timelines are imposed to expedite dispute resolution. A claimant is required to lodge an adjudication application within eight to 14 days after the deadline for payment response or the due date for payment.[14] The respondent (typically the payer) has only seven days from the receipt of the adjudication application to provide an adjudication response.[15] Failure to respond within this timeframe may result in the adjudicator determining the dispute based solely on the claimant’s submissions. The adjudicator is then obliged to deliver their decision within 14 days of receiving the adjudication response.[16] These strict timelines ensure disputes are resolved within a month. The expedited manner in which adjudication is carried out facilitates smooth cash flow across various segments of the construction value chain, and alleviates the financial burden on businesses reliant on steady cash flow to support their ongoing construction projects.


Further, unlike arbitration or litigation, where costs can accumulate over years, statutory adjudication offers a relatively more cost-effective resolution process (partly contributed by the compressed timelines as explained above). Its affordability makes it accessible even to smaller firms with limited financial means – it is not uncommon for parties to adjudication to resolve their disputes without legal representation.


Moreover, adjudication is often favourable to downstream contractors, as its primary objective is on facilitating payment recovery. While upstream parties, like developers and main contractors, may raise defences involving defects and delays, these typically do not influence the adjudicator's decision under the SOP Act, which remains focussed on payment disputes. Unlike other jurisdictions with a statutory adjudication framework specific for construction disputes, Singapore’s SOP Act excludes complex claims, such as damage, loss or expense for damages that is not supported by any document showing agreement between parties or any certificate or other document that is required to be issued under the contract. These complex disputes must instead be resolved in arbitration or litigation.


‘Rough and ready’ justice

One of the key characteristics of statutory adjudication is the prima facie standard of proof, stemming from the ‘rough and ready justice’ necessitated by adjudication’s tight timelines. Adjudication determinations are based solely on the evidence and documents presented by the parties, without extensive investigations or requiring exhaustive evidence. A basic level of proof – showing that the claimant has performed work and is owed payment – would generally be sufficient for an adjudicator to grant an award to the claimant for those works. This contrasts with the balance of probabilities standard applied in arbitration or litigation. By adopting a less stringent standard, adjudication delivers prompt resolutions and ensures downstream contractors receive interim payments without undue legal hurdles.


Given the swift nature of adjudication proceedings, a fundamental principle under the SOP Act is the concept of temporary finality. Enshrined under section 21(1) of the SOP Act, adjudication determinations are binding unless and until the dispute is finally resolved through arbitration or litigation. In other words, while adjudication determinations must be given effect, they do not prevent parties from revisiting the dispute or overturning the determination in subsequent arbitration or litigation. The concept gives rise to the maxim ‘pay now, argue later’, where parties are required to settle the adjudicated amount promptly, even if they later challenge the determination in court or arbitration.


Mediation

Like in many jurisdictions, mediation in Singapore is commonly available and is a frequently pursued alternative dispute resolution process. Given the size of the construction fraternity in Singapore, many construction firms and professionals prefer avoiding a contentious showdown in order to maintain positive business relationships with others in the industry. Further, mediation presents as a relatively quicker and cheaper option compared to other available dispute resolution processes.


In Singapore, both institution-based and ad-hoc mediation are available to disputing parties. The most widely known mediation centres in Singapore are the SMC and the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC). Parties may either agree to the mediators or request the mediation centre to nominate the mediators to facilitate the resolution of the dispute.


Dispute boards

Dispute boards are a form of alternative dispute resolution designed to provide timely and impartial decisions on disputes that arise during construction projects. They are typically composed of independent experts who monitor the project and intervene when necessary to resolve conflicts. A dispute board generally has the power to adjudicate or opine on all emerging disputes arising from the project, and can make recommendations or temporarily binding decisions. Parties are not usually bound to comply with a dispute board’s recommendation or decision if it notifies its disagreement within a certain period of time prescribed under the contract. The recommendation or decision is temporarily binding (in the same way as adjudication) – meaning that it is binding until the dispute is fully determined in court or arbitration.


Parties may also choose to enforce a dispute board’s recommendation or decision. Under various dispute board mechanisms or protocols, there are provisions that stipulate that, if a contracting party does not comply with the dispute board’s recommendation or decision, the other party may refer such non-compliance to the court or arbitration, which shall have the power to make the requisite order or award to enforce the dispute board’s recommendation or decision.


Dispute boards has been widely described as a method of ‘conflict avoidance’, in which parties can resolve disagreements amicably during the building phase and avoid more contentious proceedings. Further, if conflicts do arise, they can be dealt with expeditiously and contemporaneously. This ensures that project momentum is maintained through the preservation of collaborative and cooperative relationships among stakeholders, thereby ensuring that the project is delivered on time and within budget.


Shift towards collaborative contracting in Singapore

The construction industry in Singapore has recently placed an emphasis on collaborative contracting. This is a contracting model in which the employer, the contractor and other downstream parties share a more cooperative relationship in the project. Industry leaders and government agencies are increasingly acknowledging the benefits of collaborative contracting, which promotes transparency, mutual trust and shared accountability among all stakeholders including the employer. This is compared to the traditionally employed lump-sum and build-only contracting models in Singapore, which focuses more on establishing clear rights and responsibilities between parties, which aligns with ’blame-finding’ in construction contracts.


BCA has been actively advocating a shift towards collaborative contracting, especially within the public sector projects. In 2017, BCA introduced an optional module for collaborative contracting in the PSSCOC.[17] More recently, selected public sector projects in Singapore are piloting the use of NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract (NEC4 ECC), generally viewed as a collaborative contract form, which incorporates additional clauses to align with Singapore’s legal framework.[18] These initiatives complement the principles of dispute boards, which prioritise proactive intervention and collaborative approaches to resolving disputes. Both the collaborative contracting module under the PSSCOC and the NEC4 ECC offer parties an ability to establish a dispute board in accordance with the Singapore Infrastructure Dispute-Management Protocol 2018 (SIDP).


SIDP

Established in 2018, SIDP is designed and recommended for construction or infrastructure projects of more than S$500m in value. SIDP sets out a framework for the appointment and involvement of a dispute board to assist in the effective management of differences or disputes that may arise in mega construction or infrastructure projects. Under the SIDP, parties may opt for a dispute board comprising one, two or three expert professionals, which may be drawn from SIMC’s Specialists (Infrastructure) Panel). The dispute board is typically constituted at the commencement of the project, to enable the members to establish a schedule of meetings and site visits. Under the SIDP, the dispute board may render an opinion, facilitate mediation or amicable resolution or issue a formal determination. Where an opinion or a determination is unchallenged within the prescribed time limits, they become final and binding on parties. [19]


Neutral evaluation

Neutral evaluation has become a useful dispute resolution mechanism in Singapore's construction industry. Neutral evaluation involves an impartial third party, often a former judge, senior counsel or specialised expert, who assesses the merits of a case and provides a reasoned opinion. This process is designed to help disputing parties understand the strengths and weaknesses of their positions, offering a cost-effective and expedient alternative to litigation or arbitration.


In Singapore, neutral evaluation is available as a scheme under the Law Society Neutral Evaluation Determination Scheme (LSNED), the SMC or on an ad-hoc basis. SMC is a prominent forum.[20] The procedural framework for neutral evaluation is governed by the SMC's Neutral Evaluation Rules.[21] These rules outline the steps for initiating neutral evaluation. Parties may propose a neutral evaluator, subject to the SMC’s approval. The appointed evaluator reviews written briefs and oral presentations on the disputed issues, before rendering their opinion on the merits of the case similar to a written judgment or determination. Importantly, the entire neutral evaluation process is private and confidential.


Neutral evaluation may be especially helpful in the construction sector, where disputes often revolve around technical issues such as variation claims. These disputes can be complex and costly to resolve through traditional litigation or arbitration, especially given the need for expert evidence in most cases. Neutral evaluation offers a lower-cost alternative, where parties are able to obtain what is essentially an expert opinion on the discrete disputed issues in order to assess their respective positions. For instance, in cases involving conflicting expert evidence, a neutral evaluator with industry expertise can provide a decisive opinion to potentially break the parties’ deadlock in position. By agreeing to the evaluator's opinion, parties can resolve disputes efficiently and consider an amicable settlement of their claims, which save parties’ time and costs.


Litigation

The Singapore Courts comprise, inter alia, the Supreme Court and the State Courts. The State Courts hear relatively simpler or lower-value disputes and consist of the District Courts and the Magistrates’ Courts, among others. The Supreme Court hears complex and higher-value disputes and comprises the Court of Appeal (the apex court in Singapore) and the High Court. The High Court consists of the General Division of the High Court, the Appellate Division of the High Court and the Singapore International Commercial Court.[22]


Singapore International Commercial Court

The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) is a division of the High Court of Singapore. It was established in 2015 to address the growing demand for effective transnational dispute resolution.[23] It serves as a neutral forum for resolving international commercial disputes, leveraging Singapore's strategic location and its judiciary's reputation for efficiency and integrity.


The SICC has established the Technology, Infrastructure and Construction List (TIC List)[24] as a specialised division to address complex disputes in these sectors. Cases placed in the TIC List benefit from enhanced case management features designed to streamline the resolution process. These include broad powers for managing expert evidence, the exchange of witness statements prior to document disclosure and the use of Scott Schedules to present cases systematically. Additionally, optional voluntary protocols, such as the Simplified Adjudication Process Protocol and the Pre-Action Protocol, offer flexibility to parties in addressing their unique dispute needs.


The TIC List is overseen by a panel of specialist judges, including both local and international experts, ensuring that cases are adjudicated with a wealth of experience and expertise. This approach underscores the SICC's role as a hub for resolving complex international disputes efficiently and effectively.


Incorporating the TIC List into the broader context of the SICC exemplifies the court's innovative approach to international dispute resolution. The SICC's ability to adapt to the evolving needs of global commerce, coupled with its reputation for integrity and efficiency, solidifies its position as a leading forum for transnational disputes. The TIC List further enhances this by addressing the specific challenges of technology, infrastructure and construction disputes, making the SICC a comprehensive solution for diverse commercial conflicts.


Conclusion

There are a multitude of dispute resolution mechanisms available in Singapore for parties in the construction industry, each with its unique purposes and functions. Therefore, it is highly beneficial, if not crucial, for parties to be familiar with the different dispute resolution forums. A keen and close understanding of how these forums operate, not just individually but in interaction with one another, would provide a competitive advantage in navigating commercial risks and maximising commercial interests.


Observations and insights

Based on industry experience, the following insights may be gleaned in relation to the various forums examined:

  • While adjudication has only temporary finality, adjudication proceedings often lead to full and final settlements between parties. It is common for upstream parties to refuse or withhold payments to downstream parties due to defective works, delays or disputes on variation works. However, once a downstream party initiates adjudication proceedings, the upstream party is put in a position that would generally require them to make payment for works done by the downstream party, notwithstanding the other prevailing issues. Therefore, the upstream party may be compelled to confront all existing issues between parties, including their potential claims against the downstream. In this regard, instead of pursuing claims against the downstream party in more costly and lengthy arbitration or litigation, parties may agree to settle all outstanding claims at once.

  • Despite the push for collaborative contracting in Singapore, it would be unsurprising to see some teething problems in the construction industry. Hitherto, much emphasis has been placed on the allocation of rights and responsibilities, with a general culture of fault-finding between parties. It may take some time for this culture to change. Additionally, notwithstanding the advantages of collaborative models (such as collaborative contracting models and dispute boards) as a less confrontational and proactive tool to resolve conflicts during the project stage, challenges remain in Singapore regarding awareness and contractual implementation.

  • It is becoming increasingly uncommon and unlikely for parties in the construction industry to pursue contentious proceedings like arbitration or litigation, without first or concurrently attempting alternative dispute resolution procedures such as mediation or neutral evaluation. There may be a few main reasons for this. First, parties wish to save time and costs, which would be expended in protracted legal proceedings. Second, parties value the preservation of commercial relationships, especially when the disputing party is a large multinational corporation or a government-related entity, and there may be concurrent or future projects with the same. Third, undergoing such alternative dispute resolution procedures may be stipulated in the contract governing the construction project, and mandated by the Singapore Courts.


Endnotes

[1] Building and Construction Authority, ‘Construction Demand to Remain Strong for 2025, published by the Building and Construction Industry of Singapore’, 23 January 2025 (https://www1.bca.gov.sg/about-us/news-and-publications/media-releases/2025/01/23/construction-demand-to-remain-strong-for-2025).

[2] ibid.

[3] Ministry of Trade and Industry Singapore, ‘MTI maintains 2025 GDP Growth at “1.0 to 3.0 Per Cent”’, 14 February 2025 (https://www.mti.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Releases/2025/02/MTI-Maintains-2025-GDP-Growth-at-1-to-3-Per-Cent).

[4] SIAC Annual Report 2024.

[5] ibid.

[7] CSY v CSZ [2022] SGCA 43 at [1].

[8] SIAC Rules 2025.

[9] ibid, rule 13.

[10] ibid, rule 14.

[11] ibid, rule 46.

[12] ibid, rule 38.

[13] ibid, rule 4.2.

[14] Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 (SOP Act), section 13.

[15] SOP Act, section 15.

[16] SOP Act, section 17(1).

[17] Public Sector Standard Conditions of Contract for Construction Works 2020, Option Module C.

[18] Building and Construction Authority, ‘W and Z Clauses for Use with NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract (ECC) in Singapore’, 23 January 2025 (https://www1.bca.gov.sg/docs/default-source/docs-corp-news-and-publications/circulars/circular---nec4-ecc-w-and-z-clauses.pdf).

[22] SG Courts, ‘About the Singapore courts’ (https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/who-we-are/about-singapore-courts).


Comments

bottom of page