UK: SIAC's Proposal For A Protocol On Cross-Institutional Consolidation Of Arbitrations: Too Much Complexity To Be Beneficial?

Last Updated: 16 January 2018
Article by Matthew Knowles

One of the characteristics of international arbitration that users sometimes find frustrating is the very limited potential to consolidate into a single arbitration disputes between the same parties on fundamentally the same matters. Contesting separate arbitrations on the same or closely related issues is likely to result in increased costs, will quite possibly entail delay in reaching a final resolution, and may lead to inconsistent outcomes. We have recent experience of this in a dispute where the same facts and broadly the same substantive arguments were at issue in five separate arbitrations.

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre's proposal for a protocol covering the consolidation of cross-institutional arbitrations is interesting and deserves further consideration, but faces questions both of principle and as to whether it is capable of being of real utility, as well as practical hurdles. This comment will focus on a few key issues.

Party autonomy and "efficiency and fairness"

First, matters of principle. SIAC takes as its starting point an extract from its President's core text on international arbitration, noting that "by selecting divergent arbitration procedures ..., arbitral seats and/or appointing authorities, the parties (wisely or unwisely) expressed their preference for incompatible dispute resolution mechanisms".

Whether or not the parenthetical comment is unduly wry, the broad statement is true enough, except that the parties do more than express a preference – they make a choice. Of course, while that choice is typically made at the time of the original contracting, it is always open to parties to enter into a submission agreement as and when disputes arise, to enable all of those disputes to be decided within a single dispute resolution process. Where a party declines to do so, it is utilising rights that it has negotiated for and agreed. Any infringement of a party's ability to enforce contractual rights, particularly within a contractual jurisdiction, should not be undertaken lightly.

Secondly, the memorandum asserts that such a protocol would "result in significant gains in efficiency and fairness for parties that seek to resolve their disputes through arbitration".

"Fairness and efficiency" are, it seems, equated with a reduced risk of satellite disputes, inconsistent awards, and additional costs of fighting the same or similar issues in multiple forums. With the caveats discussed below, that is clearly a sensible motive. On the basis of the current proposal, however, the scale of the potential benefit is unclear and there seems to be a very real risk that a protocol entered into with the intention of bringing efficiency may give rise to exactly what it seeks to avoid i.e. satellite disputes, additional costs, and delay.

Compatibility: a high hurdle?

Although the paper does not address in detail the substantive test for whether arbitrations should be consolidated in any particular situation, there is helpful reference to the compatibility requirement for consolidating arbitrations found in many arbitral rules. SIAC refers to Bernard Hanotiau's view that compatibility entails no differences in the institutional or ad hoc nature of the arbitration, the seat, the number of arbitrators, or the appointment procedure. This definition of compatibility has implications for the proposal:

  • The choice of institution is often, although by no means always, linked to the choice of seat e.g. London with the LCIA; Paris with the ICC; Singapore, SIAC; Hong Kong, HKIAC. While that is a generalisation, if compatibility is required and entails identical seats (or at least identical arbitral regimes), this seems likely to be a significant constraint on the utility of any protocol.
  • Looking at the institutional/ad hoc split, should ad hoc arbitrations be excluded from the proposal's ambit? Should the protocol be capable of application if an institution has an administrative role under the ad hoc arbitration agreement? Can a third party (the Secretary General of the PCA, perhaps) participate in the decision-making process where an ad hoc arbitration agreement is in play? The last solution would seem directly contrary to party autonomy. The other two approaches would be conceivable if the parties had agreed, for example, to the UNCITRAL Rules and those Rules themselves had incorporated a consolidation protocol, or it was clear from the rules of the administering authority that the possibility to consolidate existed in this situation as well as where its own rules were to be followed.
  • The requirement for identical appointment processes may also derail potential consolidations. To give an obvious example, the default position under the LCIA Rules is institutional selection, whereas under the ICC Rules it is party nomination. Assuming that parties had incorporated those sets of rules without amendment into separate agreements, would that difference in the respective rules exclude cross-consolidation?

Other reasons for caution

Any protocol must also pay due regard to the fact that there are perfectly sensible reasons why parties that have every intention of performing their contracts (and, if necessary, arbitrating disputes on the basis agreed), might choose differing institutions, seats, etc within the same contractual suite. These might include:

  • Enforcement considerations;
  • Concerns around cyber-crime (for example, the risk of hacking being higher in one jurisdiction than another and the consequent desire to keep certain material out of a particular jurisdiction);
  • Parties having corporate policies mandating certain dispute resolution mechanisms in certain circumstances and the mix being the best available compromise.

Users might have other motivations, too. These might include reasons that are not specific to the particular transaction or project. They might well also include, as a matter of commercial reality, the settlement leverage which may flow from either the need for parallel proceedings or the possibility, or reality, of inconsistent arbitration awards on matters arising out of the same contractual suite (and, quite possibly, the same facts). Indeed, having inconsistent dispute resolution mechanisms may be the only available protection for a well-informed party that has had to accept otherwise problematic commercial terms. (While an arbitration agreement is severable, it is hardly unknown for its provisions to be traded for terms elsewhere in the underlying contract.)

The sensible user will, of course, weigh as far as possible the costs and benefits of its approach as at the date of contract. And, as noted above, it is of course open to the parties to agree a different approach at the time when a dispute arises. Do "fairness and efficiency" demand that institutions should have the power to trump a party's contractual rights?

Who decides and how?

As the memorandum acknowledges, there are other matters that would need to be ironed out. For example, what should happen if the representatives of two named institutions on a joint committee do not agree? Presumably, no agreement means no consolidation, but they may be in agreement on the desirability of consolidation, but differ as to which of them should take the case. (In passing, all the suggestions in the memorandum for criteria to determine which institution's rules should apply are open to being gamed to a greater or lesser degree – with the possible exception of the geographical criterion, which seems unlikely to be attractive to institutions or to parties.) If three or more institutions are in play, should a majority suffice or should unanimity be required? The answer may differ between the two questions.


As noted at the outset, the limitations on consolidation in arbitration can be problematic for users. SIAC's proposal is innovative but engages matters of principle which make careful consideration important. It will be interesting to see how all stakeholders respond to SIAC's consultation process and how those responses affect the development of this proposal.

Philippa Charles, head of the International Arbitration Department, has been quoted in CDR Magazine with respect to the SIAC proposal. Her comments can be found here: New proposal for consolidation of arbitrations by SIAC.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions