Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon: Cedric Barclay Memorial Lecture 2026 – 'Maritime Arbitration and the Transnational System of Commercial Justice: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow'

Speech delivered at the Cedric Barclay Memorial Lecture, ICMA XXIII

“Maritime Arbitration and the Transnational System of Commercial Justice: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”

Monday, 23 March 2026

The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon*

Supreme Court of Singapore

The Honourable Mr Chao Hick Tin SC, Chairman of the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration

My fellow Judges

Members of the ICMA Steering Committee

Representatives of national maritime organisations and arbitral institutes

Distinguished delegates and guests

Ladies and gentlemen

I. Introduction 

1. A very good morning to you. Let me join the chair of the SCMA and also the Minister of Law in extending to each of you a very warm welcome, and to those who have travelled to Singapore, we are especially delighted to welcome you to our country. We are greatly privileged to be hosting the Congress again after almost two decades. I am also grateful to the organisers, particularly the SCMA and its esteemed Chair, my very good friend Mr Chao Hick Tin, for the very generous invitation to attend this year’s Congress and to deliver the Cedric Barclay Memorial Lecture. Let me also thank Mr Chao for his thoughtful opening remarks, which very much resonate with much of what I will be speaking to you about in the course of my lecture.

2. Since the inaugural lecture in 1991, this platform has been graced by many leading jurists, such as The Right Honourable Lord Mustill and Ambassador Tommy Koh, President of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. I am humbled to join the ranks of such distinguished company, who reflect the high esteem in which the late Mr Barclay was held. Indeed, Mr Barclay has been hailed as the “godfather” of international maritime arbitration,¹ and this Congress is his brainchild, conceived with three like-minded peers, while attending a conference for commercial arbitrators in 1972. They resolved then, in the unlikely setting of a Moscow subway station, to establish a dedicated forum that the maritime community could call its own.²

3. Lord Phillips once noted that Mr Barclay had been involved in at least 135 arbitrations that resulted in a reported decision of the English Commercial Court.³ That is especially impressive because before he became a leading arbitrator and President of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (or the “LMAA”), Mr Barclay had been a shipowner and even founded a shipping line.⁴ This progression mirrors the a trajectory of maritime arbitration itself, which has long drawn upon the experience of those who have lived the realities of maritime trade. 

4. My lecture this morning will focus on this deep-rooted connection between the commercial and the legal sides of maritime work. It will propose that maritime arbitration presents an excellent, if underappreciated, case study of how the law should be contextualised to serve the needs of commerce. In past speeches, I have referred to this as the procedural norm of contextuality.⁵ Rather than settle for standardised or blanket approaches to dispute resolution, we should discard the cookie-cutter and pick up the chisel to craft mechanisms that match the size, nature and complexity of disputes, and the interests of the parties involved.⁶ I believe that the maritime arbitration community has embraced this norm as a guiding ethos of its procedural philosophy, and that the wider transnational system of commercial justice should tap into this precious wellspring of ideas. 

5. At the same time, we must recognise that because maritime arbitration is an integral part of the wider arbitration landscape, it is not insulated from the winds of change that have so far blown elsewhere. Just as we should distil lessons from maritime arbitration, we should also reflect on how developments in other areas of commercial dispute resolution might impact this community. This might bring lessons of what is worth importing – or avoiding – and it will surely help ensure that maritime arbitration remains responsive to commercial needs.

6. Let me develop these themes by charting a course through three temporal horizons:

(a) I will begin with maritime arbitration’s past, from its merchant roots to its maturation as a specialised legal practice.

(b) I will then consider current trends in the world of arbitration that may in time come to affect, or perhaps are already affecting, maritime arbitration. 

(c) I will finally look into the future, and explore what maritime arbitration might learn from wider commercial practice, and the lessons that it might offer to the general arbitration community in return.

II. A Brief History of Maritime Arbitration

7. Let me begin this journey in 335 BCE. In a speech titled Against Phormio, the Greek orator Demosthenes recounts a dispute over loans secured against goods that were onboard a ship lost in voyage.⁷ With all evidence lost at sea, the case was mired in allegations of fraud, and found its way before an arbitrator as its first port of call. This reflected the realities of the time – maritime commerce was expanding rapidly across the Mediterranean, and Greek merchants trading in unfamiliar city-states began to seek refuge in arbitration.⁸

8. By the Middle Ages, several Italian communes had gone further by mandating the submission of maritime disputes to arbitrators with recognised expertise in maritime practice.⁹ Arbitration’s appeal would survive the fall of the city-state and the rise of the nation-state. In 1698, England passed its pioneering Arbitration Act in response to the rapid proliferation of commercial disputes in London,¹⁰ taking the historic step of providing a “legal mechanism [to protect] arbitration agreements”.¹¹ Across the Atlantic, New York saw its first maritime arbitration award two centuries ago in 1826, in a case involving the procurement of two armed frigates destined for the Greek War of Independence.¹² The growth of maritime arbitration since then has been nothing short of remarkable. We have reached a point where easily more than a thousand maritime arbitrations take place each year, and in 2024, more than 1,800 new maritime arbitrations were seated in London alone.¹³

9. I suggest that two key features of maritime arbitration might explain its enduring popularity, which I will refer to as the twin pillars of expertise and economy.

10. The former refers to a preference to have disputes resolved by industry peers with technical expertise and commercial experience. The ideal maritime arbitrator possesses not just deep commercial knowledge but also sound commercial wisdom – a feel for the rhythms of the trade that can only be acquired through years of experience.¹⁴ Indeed, it was not so long ago that maritime arbitrators were drawn almost entirely from the ranks of ship brokers, owners, charterers, masters and engineers.¹⁵

11. A corollary of this is that mastery of the law was often of secondary importance, and occasionally even frowned upon. Some arbitration clauses called for arbitrators who were “commercial men and not lawyers”,¹⁶ and it was uncommon to see lawyer-arbitrators even up to the 1980s.¹⁷

12. The second key feature is the mantra that processes should be quick, simple and cheap.¹⁸ Perishable cargo and strict schedules mean that parties are constantly subject to an unyielding rule: keep the ships sailing or lose money.¹⁹ Indeed, the premium placed on efficient dispute resolution is especially pronounced in this sector, because of three factors in particular: (a) first, the volume of disputes which inevitably arise from commercial activity on the seas, (b) second, the high opportunity costs of lost time, and (c) third, the likelihood of disputes reverberating down chains of commercial interests.

13. Arbitration, when well-managed, answers this imperative by promising a relatively flexible and practical process for securing decisions without delay while they can still be acted upon. This can be vividly illustrated by a few vignettes.

(a) Lord Mustill once gave an example of a hypothetical dispute over timber cargo that was rejected upon arrival at a London wharf. Two arbitrators would be appointed without any terms of reference or written submissions, and in Lord Mustill’s words, “[t]he arbitrator[s] would already know what the dispute was about … [they] would go down to the wharf[,] climb over the timber[,] look at it and publish an award which simply said: ‘The buyers have no right of rejection. There will be an allowance of 5% against the price’.”²⁰

(b) Similarly, Mr Bruce Harris, a two-time LMAA president, describes a time when disputes would be condensed to a small clip of papers with a covering letter outlining the dispute and the parties’ points of view, and this would be sufficient for the arbitrators to issue their award.²¹ You might be envious to hear that decisions were also rarely challenged in court.²²

(c) And Mr Barclay himself has recounted hearings conducted while “leaning against the windlass, or resting on suitcases in airport lounges, arguing on board airplanes … and [even] in a ship’s galley”.²³

14. Significantly, these twin pillars of expertise and economy are mutually reinforcing, because specialist knowledge forms an accelerant that enables arbitrators to swiftly master the nuances of the case and arrive at commercially-acceptable decisions.²⁴

15. Maritime arbitration today is probably not as quick, simple, and cheap as it once was. But one still catches occasional glimpses of the past. In the Singapore Court of Appeal, I recently came across a maritime arbitration award which spanned just 16 pages and it was delightful in its simplicity. It served as a salient reminder of the virtues which first commended arbitration to the maritime community. Needless to say, the challenge against the award on the ground that it failed to deal with every argument was quickly rejected.

III. Trends Confronting Maritime Arbitration Today

16. Of course, such cases are increasingly the exception rather than the expectation.²⁵ This concerning trajectory reflects deeper changes affecting the practice of arbitration. As I turn from maritime arbitration’s past to its present, let me highlight two trends which are perhaps especially significant: the growing “industrialisation” of arbitration, and the seeming “stagnation” of arbitral jurisprudence.

A. The trend of “industrialisation” 

17. The trend of industrialisation describes the growing complexity and formalism of arbitral practice in recent decades. Voluminous documents, lengthy submissions, and protracted hearings are now par for the course. Meanwhile, attempts to limit such practices sometimes run aground in the currents of what has been referred to as due process paranoia.²⁶ This has trapped many users of arbitration in an unhappy state of drawn-out proceedings and mounting costs.²⁷ Maritime arbitration is no stranger to these concerns.²⁸

18. I pause to observe that this problem sometimes goes by a different name – “judicialisation” – which I have previously suggested is a misnomer.²⁹ Many leading commercial courts are equally concerned by the threat posed by growing complexity and formalism, and courts have actively countered them through procedural innovations.³⁰ I add here that early and judge-led case management is central to the identity of the Singapore International Commercial Court (or the “SICC”).³¹

19. But in arbitration, the conditions are arguably less conducive for combatting industrialisation for at least two reasons. 

20. First, some arbitrators face real disincentives to undertake robust case management. An arbitrator may feel compelled to indulge procedural requests out of caution,³² or an abiding commitment to party autonomy, or in some cases, perhaps not to harm the prospects of future appointments.³³

21. Second, the stakes tend to be higher for parties in arbitration because of the limited grounds for curial review and, in most cases outside England, the absence of a right of appeal. This can incentivise parties to throw in the proverbial kitchen sink,³⁴ or resort to “guerrilla tactics” to obstruct, delay or sabotage the arbitration.³⁵ Unsurprisingly, when respondents to the 2025 White & Case and Queen Mary International Arbitration Survey were asked about obstacles to efficient proceedings, a lack of proactive case management as well as adversarial and over-lawyered approaches featured at the top of the list.³⁶

22. What makes these dynamics especially worrying is that industrialisation shows no signs of abating. Arbitral bodies and rules continue to proliferate,³⁷ while the sorts of disputes which are referred to arbitration are increasingly complex and high-stakes.³⁸ While these trends are a testament to arbitration’s growing sophistication and standing, if left unmanaged, they can also engender more formal and elaborate proceedings.³⁹

23. Maritime arbitration, though featuring these trends to a much lesser degree, has not been spared altogether from having to confront the challenge of industrialisation. But its consequences can be especially damaging for the maritime community. This is because industrialisation poses a direct threat to the twin pillars of economy and expertise that have made maritime arbitration as successful as it is today.⁴⁰

B. The trend of “stagnation” 

24. A second trend that has come to affect arbitration is “stagnation” in the development of the jurisprudence. 

25. Until recently, strict confidentiality has been regarded as an inviolable principle of arbitration and a “subject [that] was never [to be] debated”.⁴¹ While naturally valued by commercial parties, the price of confidentiality has been limited publication of awards. Only a handful of maritime arbitral bodies routinely do so, such as the Society of Maritime Arbitrators in New York (or the “SMA”), which stands out for its longstanding policy of publishing awards going back to 1963.⁴² The dearth of arbitral jurisprudence in general has prompted concern in at least some quarters that the resolution of disputes behind closed doors is “retarding … public understanding of the law”.⁴³

26. This tension is especially pronounced in those areas of commercial law that have experienced what has been described as “the vanishing commercial trial and the … flight to arbitration”.⁴⁴ Paradoxically, these tend to be the same areas that would benefit the most from a cohesive and comprehensive body of transnational jurisprudence. And in my view, maritime law exemplifies this perfectly. Given shipping’s inherently transnational character,⁴⁵ the seamless flow of maritime trade rests on a library of well-known standard form contracts. Each contract is laden with specialised terms and concepts such as “customary assistance”, “seaworthiness”, and “demurrage”, which are widely-understood to a broadly consistent degree. Such harmonisation enhances certainty, minimises disputes, and improves risk management and insurance coverage. But these positive outcomes for the industry and indeed the rule of law can only be sustained if two conditions continue to be met. First, these concepts must continue to be interpreted and applied in a consistent manner across jurisdictions. Second, they must be updated to address an evolving maritime landscape characterised by the kinds of pressing challenges that were outlined in Mr Chao’s speech and that feature prominently in this Congress, ranging from the complexities of navigating international sanctions and decarbonisation frameworks, to novel issues introduced by autonomous vessels, electronic bills of lading and artificial intelligence.⁴⁶

27. Beyond this, maritime case-law has profoundly influenced the evolution of substantive commercial law. Because its reach extends to virtually anything that concerns a ship, it traverses much of the field of legal relations between commercial parties. Some of you might recall Lord Goff’s observation that the “characteristic commercial contract is a contract for the carriage of goods by sea”.⁴⁷ Maritime disputes have long provided fertile ground for developing legal principles in such important and diverse areas as contract, tort and private international law.⁴⁸ Indeed, essential remedies such as the Mareva injunction,⁴⁹ and classic restatements of the law, such as the law on innominate terms in The Hong Kong Fir,⁵⁰ derive their names from the landmark cases and the storied vessels from which these disputes arose.⁵¹ This accords with the experience of the English Commercial Court, where the vast majority of arbitration-related appeals concern points of law arising from shipping cases.⁵²

28. What all of this demonstrates is the immense commercial value of developing a transnational lex mercatoria that is enriched by precedents from maritime arbitration. Despite this, the non-publication of maritime arbitration awards and the lack of opportunity for those disputes to find their way to the court system continues to prevail, and save in the rare case where a matter finds its way to an appeal that results in a published judgment, the principles decided in those matters are forever lost to the law. 

IV. A Vision for the Future

29. The trends of industrialisation and stagnation represent serious obstacles that maritime arbitration must confront and overcome in order to preserve what has made it so successful. And I believe these challenges are not insurmountable, and their solutions are not radically new. This brings me to the third part of my address, where I will outline a vision for the future through two complementary perspectives. I will first touch on the insights that maritime arbitration can glean from the wider transnational system of commercial justice in order to combat industrialisation and stagnation. I will then flip this perspective to explore the lessons that maritime arbitration might have to offer the wider arbitration community. 

A. Insights for maritime arbitration

i. Addressing industrialisation

30. Let me begin with industrialisation. I should first acknowledge that many features of maritime arbitration already serve to inhibit this trend, such as the widespread preference for ad hoc arbitration and the array of expedited procedures. These are genuine strengths that deserve closer attention, and I will return to them a little later. But more can and should be done, and I will make three key suggestions that can guide the way forward.

a. Early dismissal mechanisms

31. The first suggestion that we can draw from other forms of commercial dispute resolution is the value of early dismissal and summary disposal mechanisms, which is an emerging feature in the rules of commercial arbitration institutions. These mechanisms prevent meritless⁵³ claims and defences from “draw[ing] out [proceedings] … generating wasted costs, and delaying the inevitable resolution of the dispute”.⁵⁴ Whereas expedited procedures generally triage disputes based on their quantum, early dismissal mechanisms add a complementary focus on the substance of the claim – or its lack thereof. 

32. The user-demand for early determination procedures is evident. In the Queen Mary survey that I referenced earlier, approximately one in two respondents identified such procedures as a key modality for improving efficiency, second only to expedited procedures.⁵⁵ The UK’s recent reforms to its Arbitration Act of 1996 are telling. A new section 39A now provides that, unless the parties agree otherwise, an arbitral tribunal may make an award on a summary basis if it considers that a party has “no real prospect of succeeding”. I understand that some maritime arbitrators have voiced concerns that “an express power might encourage skirmishing and satellite applications”.⁵⁶ This is a legitimate concern, but I suggest that the answer lies not in curbing the availability of such powers but in ensuring their judicious exercise. The solution requires tribunals not only to use these powers judiciously but also to dismiss frivolous applications for early dismissal decisively.

33. In Singapore, our law ministry is considering whether to codify summary disposal powers in our International Arbitration Act (or “IAA”) as part of its latest reform study that the Minister touched on yesterday.⁵⁷ Our courts have previously upheld the proper exercise of such powers where they were provided for in the relevant arbitral rules. Take, for example, the 2023 decision of the SICC in DBO v DBP.⁵⁸ In an SIAC arbitration, the respondent borrower had argued that its repayment obligations had been discharged by frustration due to COVID-19. The tribunal dismissed this defence under the SIAC’s early dismissal procedure and allowed the claim. The borrower then applied to set aside the award, alleging that they had been deprived of their right to present their case because they maintained that there was a critical factual dispute on the repayment terms which warranted a full evidentiary hearing.⁵⁹ That challenge was firmly rejected by the SICC and the Court of Appeal.  Significantly, the courts held that there was no breach of natural justice, because, among other things, the tribunal had assumed the truth of the underlying facts pleaded by the borrower.  But what is equally significant is the speed with which the dispute was resolved: the award was rendered within three months of the early dismissal application, and both courts reached their decisions within five months each. And the case illustrates two crucial points. First, it is not enough that summary powers are available; arbitrators must be given support and encouragement to exercise them effectively. Second, the courts have to act with equal expedition, to ensure that efficiency gains achieved through early disposals are not lost in subsequent court proceedings. 

b. Robust curial support

34. This dovetails with a second insight into how we might stem the tide of industrialisation, which relates to institutional alignment within the transnational system of commercial justice. That insight is that arbitration’s fight against industrialisation cannot be fought alone; it must be backed by the robust support from supervisory courts. 

35. In Singapore, our courts have consistently maintained that the tribunal is the master of its own procedure. In the case of Jaguar Energy,  which involved an alleged breach of natural justice, our Court of Appeal held that a “margin of deference” would be accorded to tribunals in the exercise of their procedural discretion, which typically takes place within a “fact-intensive contextual milieu, the finer points of which the court may not be privy to.”  And in another decision from last November, DMZ v DNA, we held that Art 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law generally precludes the court from interfering with procedural determinations that affect the progress and conduct of arbitration proceedings, save where the IAA or the Model Law expressly provides for this.  We observed that this “is entirely in line with the very nature of arbitration, which … places a high degree of procedural autonomy in the hands of the parties and their chosen arbitrators”. 

36. What all of this underscores is that even our best efforts at procedural reform will flounder if arbitration is seated in an unsupportive jurisdiction. Our procedural responses to industrialisation must therefore be accompanied by considered choices as to the arbitral seat. One way of steering parties towards supportive courts is through model jurisdiction clauses, an example of which is the SIAC’s clause, which designates the SICC as the supervisory court to hear applications under the IAA.⁶⁶ The SCMA also recognises the value of this approach and has introduced its own clause.⁶⁷

c. Hybrid dispute resolution

37. A third insight is to complement arbitration with modes of alternative or appropriate dispute resolution (“ADR”) because this can reduce time, cost and acrimony for the parties.⁶⁸ This suggestion is by no means new. In 2021, the Baltic and International Maritime Council (or “BIMCO”) updated its Mediation / ADR Clause to encourage the use of mediation, early neutral evaluation and early intervention at the earliest opportunity.⁶⁹ Parties are expected to justify a refusal to attempt ADR and can face costs consequences for unjustified refusals. Such efforts have since been bolstered by the Singapore Convention on Mediation, which places the international enforceability of mediated settlement agreements on a firmer footing, following in the footsteps of the New York Convention.

38. The maritime industry’s preference for ad hoc arbitration lends itself well to mediation, because arbitration fees are typically not frontloaded and parties are less likely to be encumbered by a sunk cost effect. But more can be done to enhance the appeal of hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms. For instance, the SCMA’s Arb-Med-Arb Clause and Protocol provides a structured framework that promotes amicable resolution in at least two ways.⁷⁰ First, by expressly mandating that parties attempt mediation, the common stigma that the party proposing mediation will be thought to have the weaker case is removed. Second, because arbitration remains available at the end of the process, the parties can be assured of a dispositive outcome even if mediation fails; and where it succeeds, settlement agreements can be entered as consent awards and then enforced under the New York Convention in over 170 jurisdictions. Parties will also have access to a panel of specialist maritime mediators featuring leading practitioners from jurisdictions such as China, Singapore, and the UK.⁷¹ This framework responds to the needs of the maritime community, where arbitration is often commenced to bring a reluctant party to the table or to preserve claims amid tight limitation periods, even while settlement negotiations continue. I suggest that such frameworks deserve wider consideration.

ii. Addressing stagnation

39. Let me turn to the question of stagnation. 

a. Publication of awards

40. The first possible response, as attempted by several major arbitration institutions outside the maritime industry,⁷² is to publish more awards. As noted earlier, this would provide the maritime industry with critical guidance on the norms and customs of the trade, facilitating both dispute resolution as well as dispute avoidance.⁷³

41. Let me emphasise that I do not question the significance of confidentiality to arbitration. Parties often have a legitimate interest in keeping confidential the existence, substance and outcome of their disputes, particularly where disclosure might harm reputations or implicate sensitive business information.⁷⁴

42. But even so, the publication of awards need not sound the death knell for confidentiality. Confidentiality and transparency represent two ends of a spectrum and the goal should be to find the optimal balance that honours both objectives. In this regard, the wider arbitration community has devised calibrated approaches that combine a mixture of opt-out mechanisms, systematic redaction and selective reporting.⁷⁵ For example, the International Chamber of Commerce (or the “ICC”) has adopted an “opt-out” policy since 2019 under which awards may be published in their entirety, subject to objections from the parties or requests for anonymisation.⁷⁶ Likewise, the SCMA began publishing redacted awards and commentaries in the Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter in 2018. 

43. The only plausible reasons that parties may have for keeping even redacted summaries confidential appear to me to be tactical. It may be that by controlling access and creating information asymmetries, parties seek to preserve their ability to construct arbitrator profiles or to deploy unpublished awards as ammunition in future disputes.⁷⁷ In my view, these considerations should generally yield to the systemic benefits of publishing awards.

44. Importantly, systemic benefits are also benefits that accrue to individual parties, who depend on legal certainty to make informed business decisions and to price risks accurately.⁷⁸ Yet because the incidence of these benefits is diffused, while most parties desire the public good of enhanced certainty, they may not be as willing to volunteer to bear the individual cost of disclosure. Breaking this cycle will therefore require a broader collaborative effort to sensitise the parties to the benefits of publication and challenge mindsets that might reflexively favour confidentiality. 

45. To be clear, I am not suggesting the routine publication of all awards, which may place inadvertent pressure on arbitrators to produce more extensively-reasoned awards that can withstand public scrutiny.⁷⁹ This concern should not be brushed aside, if maritime arbitration is to remain quick, simple and cheap.⁸⁰ A more targeted approach that prioritises publishing legally significant awards could help sustain the development of jurisprudence while preserving maritime arbitration’s essential virtues.

b. Limited right of appeal

46. A second response to stagnation is to establish a limited right of appeal on points of law in more jurisdictions. In a 2019 address at the 10th Anniversary of the SCMA, I argued that a right of appeal would channel more questions of law to the courts, where public exposition through reasoned judgments is the presumptive default.⁸¹

47. I do not wish to retrace those arguments at length, save to observe that a carefully circumscribed right of appeal is unlikely to undercut arbitration, and may instead strengthen user confidence.⁸² Parties would be assured that obvious legal errors will not go uncorrected, reducing the incentives for them to adopt a “one shot” mentality and advance every conceivable argument at the expense of efficiency. A right of appeal would also not undermine party autonomy, especially if the parties had the right to opt in or out of the regime. 

48. Notably, the maritime industry appears considerably more receptive to curial review than other sectors.⁸³ London arbitration’s enduring popularity is often attributed to the availability of appellate review under section 69 of the English Arbitration Act, which operates on an opt-out basis.⁸⁴ Roughly 70% of section 69 appeals concern maritime disputes.⁸⁵ My friend and colleague on the SICC, Sir Bernard Eder, once recounted that in an informal poll of more than a hundred maritime practitioners, support for retaining section 69 was unanimous.⁸⁶ I should add that our law ministry also recently held a public consultation on the desirability of introducing a possibility of appeal on questions of law into the IAA.⁸⁷

B. Lessons from maritime arbitration 

49. Having considered the insights that maritime arbitration might gain from the wider system of commercial justice, let me now explore what it might have to teach as a model of contextualised dispute resolution. I will focus on three lessons concerning the use of ad hoc arbitration, expedited procedures and specialist arbitrators.

i. Ad hoc arbitration

50. In a throwback to the more informal proceedings of the past, maritime arbitrations today remain predominantly ad hoc in nature.⁸⁸ The rules of the LMAA and the SCMA, for instance, exemplify what has been described as a “light touch” approach.⁸⁹ This marries flexibility with cost-efficiency, in a way that appeals to those parties who are prepared to forgo features of institutional arbitration such as award scrutiny. 

51. Proponents of ad hoc arbitration argue that institutional rules can introduce delays into tribunal formation, by creating opportunities for rounds of correspondence with the institution.⁹⁰ For some institutions, this is exacerbated by requirements for costs advances before appointments are confirmed.⁹¹ Ad hoc arbitration, by contrast, can often be commenced by a simple email or letter,⁹² and parties enjoy considerable autonomy to work out procedures and even negotiate the fees.⁹³

52. So entrenched is the maritime sector’s preference for ad hoc arbitration that when the ICC attempted to develop specialised maritime arbitration rules with the Comité Maritime International in the 1970s, it faced serious difficulties in securing wide-scale adoption and only saw about a dozen arbitrations commenced. 

53. Our own experience in Singapore reflects this preference. The SCMA was originally established in 2004 as a brand within the SIAC with the full range of institutional features. After a modest run until 2009, the SCMA was reorganised as an independent body with a procedural model closer to the LMAA’s. That transformation was promptly followed by an increase in SCMA arbitrations, and shortly thereafter in 2012, Singapore had the distinction of being named as one of the arbitration seats in BIMCO’s standard forms, with the SCMA Rules designated by default.⁹⁴

54. A light-touch approach, however, should not be mistaken for a laissez-faire one. The SCMA and LMAA have both incorporated mechanisms to maintain procedural discipline while preserving flexibility. For example, parties who decline documents-only arbitration must complete a questionnaire addressing the most appropriate way of progressing the arbitration.⁹⁵ This includes the mandatory provision of costs estimates⁹⁶ – a fairly unique feature which encourages the parties to adopt reasonable costs positions from the outset. It works because parties can rarely predict arbitral outcomes with complete confidence early on, making inflated estimates a risky gamble that may backfire should they lose.⁹⁷ Late changes to party representation are also subject to procedural controls, such as prior tribunal approval.⁹⁸ Collectively, these features have helped to slow the drift towards industrialisation.

55. We might derive two lessons from the maritime community’s experience with ad hoc arbitration. First, its track record of resolving disputes flexibly and efficiently merits closer attention than it has received. While institutional arbitration offers distinct advantages and it is quite clearly here to stay, the virtues of ad hoc arbitration should not be overlooked. And, true to the ideal of contextuality, commercial parties are best served when they have access to a full suite of dispute resolution options that are equally credible and well-designed.⁹⁹ In this context, the maritime community has developed a highly sophisticated model of ad hoc arbitration that others could usefully emulate.

56. Second, the experience of maritime arbitration invites us to rethink and reimagine the traditional dichotomy between ad hoc and institutional arbitration. The SCMA, for instance, has been described as offering a hybrid model that combines flexible self-administration with a dedicated, full-time Secretariat that provides professional support services on-demand.¹⁰⁰ This suggests that ad hoc and institutional arbitration are perhaps better viewed not as fixed and binary alternatives, but as labels for a general cluster of characteristics. What truly matters are the specific services that each arbitral body provides, including the curation of arbitrator lists, the provision of tribunal secretarial services, and the management of the case’s finances. 

57. Consider the implications of this. If we were to regard these services not as predetermined elements of a particular dispute resolution model, but as a menu of elective options that the parties can choose from, then we could imagine a future in which the parties might be able to customise the particular package of services that is best tailored to their needs. The focus of arbitral bodies might then shift towards developing the ability to offer a comprehensive range of relevant services. And in this process, by transforming the set menu into a buffet of choices, we would fully realise the ideal of contextuality and indeed, of party autonomy. 

ii. Expedited procedures

58. I touch on a second area where maritime arbitration has excelled, which is the development of expedited procedures for the proportionate and cost-efficient resolution of simpler disputes. These procedures typically contain a constellation of features, which may include a simplified appointments process,¹⁰¹ shortened procedural timetables,¹⁰² reduced documentary exchange,¹⁰³ limited discovery,¹⁰⁴ a restricted right of appeal that may even be excluded altogether,¹⁰⁵ shorter timelines to awards,¹⁰⁶ and fees and costs caps.¹⁰⁷ These expedited procedures exist alongside a sizeable majority of arbitrations that proceed on a documents-only basis.¹⁰⁸

59. Such tools are vital for ensuring that arbitration remains accessible.¹⁰⁹ The maritime arbitration community appears to share this concern, being a strong proponent of fast-track procedures.¹¹⁰ In recent years, roughly a fifth of LMAA awards were issued pursuant to the Small Claims Procedure (or “SCP”),¹¹¹ while nearly half of the SCMA’s users in 2025 had claims that fell under its expedited track. The expertise of maritime arbitration bodies in implementing these procedures is evident. It has been observed that the President of the LMAA makes more than half the appointments under the SCP, typically within two days, which is considerably faster than even the process under the UNCITRAL Expedited Arbitration Rules.¹¹² The widespread adoption of such procedures likely reflects the historical imperative for maritime arbitrations to be quick, simple, and cheap, and as with the preference for ad hoc arbitration, this has served to significantly dampen the forces of industrialisation. As one commentator has observed, without these procedures, “the system would have ground to a halt long ago”.¹¹³ 

60. While expedited procedures have become commonplace beyond the maritime sector, maritime arbitration continues to offer valuable lessons because it has successfully spearheaded a system of differentiated expedited tracks. This differentiation exemplifies the norm of contextuality by calibrating the degree of expedition to the size, nature or complexity of the subject dispute. For instance, in addition to the SCP, the LMAA offers an Intermediate Claims Procedure for claims of up to US$400,000, which provides for a three-person tribunal, and restricts but does not exclude appeals.¹¹⁴ Parties can therefore adopt a more “broad-brush” approach for the smallest of disputes, while scaling up incrementally with procedural safeguards as disputes grow in size and complexity.

61. Arbitral bodies have also developed bespoke expedited regimes for particular types of disputes. The SMA has its Salvage Arbitration Rules,¹¹⁵ while the SCMA has special rules for bunker disputes below S$100,000 and for small collision claims. Under the Singapore Bunker Claims Procedure,¹¹⁶ the Registrar of the SCMA can act as an arbitrator with summary determination powers. Claims can generally be heard within 21 days and be resolved within two months, while arbitrators’ fees and legal costs are kept low.¹¹⁷

62. The SCMA’s Expedited Arbitral Determination of Collision Claims (or “SEADOCC”) procedure targets smaller collision claims where full-scale litigation would be disproportionate.¹¹⁸ Born from our experience with minor collisions in our busy shipping lanes and anchorages,¹¹⁹ SEADOCC employs a streamlined process where a sole arbitrator first undertakes an early initial assessment of the case’s complexity,¹²⁰ reviews the parties’ technical evidence and brief factual summaries, and then determines within a fortnight or so whether additional evidence is required. A draft liability award follows just six weeks after all the evidence is received, and the parties may then file a short response before the award is finalised.¹²¹ In one case, a claim for US$70,000 was processed within three months, with arbitrator fees of just US$4,000.¹²²

63. In my view, these procedural innovations showcase contextuality at its finest. They offer an instructive blueprint for the design of procedures that are proportionate and tailored to sector-specific disputes, and the wider arbitration community would have much to gain by adopting similar innovations to counter the forces of industrialisation.

iii. Specialist arbitrators 

64. A third lesson from maritime arbitration is how we might create an ecosystem that supports the development of specialist arbitrators. The maritime industry stands out for its enduring appreciation of arbitrators with expertise in the trade. As my SICC colleague, Professor Doug Jones, noted in a recent lecture, the LMAA continues to require its full members to have spent “at least 15 years in a responsible position or positions in one or more areas of the shipping industry, either commercial, technical or legal”;¹²³ and it is not uncommon for parties to favour non-lawyer arbitrators over lawyers in maritime disputes.¹²⁴

65. There are significant advantages to developing a corps of specialist arbitrators. As I have noted, a specialist arbitrator will generally be more familiar with the technical issues at hand and can serve as a valuable guide to his co-arbitrators.¹²⁵ More generally, in a tribunal which otherwise comprises lawyers, the inclusion of a specialist arbitrator introduces diversity in perspectives, which has been regarded as a positive force in arbitration that enhances arbitral outcomes.¹²⁶ 

66. Yet, the practice of appointing specialist arbitrators has gained limited traction outside select areas such as maritime, grain and sports arbitration. I suspect this stems from at least two reasons. First, aspiring arbitrators may lack the legal training or prior arbitration experience deemed necessary to break into a field that is dominated by lawyers, and this perceived shortcoming may overshadow the benefits of their technical expertise. Second, the possibility of appointing specialist arbitrators often might not be canvassed in discussions between the parties and their lawyers.

67. The experience of maritime arbitration teaches us that overcoming these barriers to entry requires strong institutional leadership. While historical and commercial factors may shape an industry’s preference for specialist arbitrators, major bodies such as the LMAA and the Grain and Feed Trade Association (or “GAFTA”) have been instrumental in legitimising and sustaining this practice by credentialing arbitrators and cultivating talent pipelines.¹²⁷ Major arbitral bodies in general commercial arbitration could steward similar change.

68. This could be achieved in several ways. Doug Jones has proposed creating pathways for accreditation that are more inclusive and not predicated on prior experience.¹²⁸ These can be supplemented with expanded opportunities for aspiring arbitrators to serve as tribunal secretaries or to undertake other roles that would increase their exposure and shorten their learning curve.¹²⁹

69. Second, arbitral institutions could feature more specialist arbitrators in the lists that are provided to their appointments committees or to the parties where a list procedure applies. This could provide a helpful starting point for discussions between parties and their lawyers about whether a specialist arbitrator might be suitable. This seems to me to be a something of proven formula: since 2016, the HKIAC has applied this practice with remarkable success to enhance female arbitrator appointments.¹³⁰ Beyond institutional support, specialist arbitrators could also form professional associations and maintain their own specialist lists. The International Construction Arbitrators Association was established last September for this very purpose: to create a specialist list for construction disputes, drawing inspiration from the LMAA’s list of shipping specialists.¹³¹ 

iv. Limits to universality

70. Taken together, these lessons on ad hoc arbitration, expedited procedures and specialist arbitrators offer a masterclass in how the practice of arbitration might be contextualised to serve the needs of a given industry. What makes these lessons truly valuable, however, is not so much the precise practices that maritime arbitration employs but the underlying approach its embraces: how it endeavours to understand the needs of its industry and how it works tirelessly to forge responsive frameworks. Let me conclude by considering the practice of repeat or multiple appointments by the same party to illustrate this point.¹³²

71. This received detailed consideration in the UK Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Halliburton v Chubb Bermuda Insurance.¹³³ The Supreme Court was faced with two issues there: first, “whether and to what extent an arbitrator may accept appointments in multiple references concerning the same or overlapping subject matter with only one common party without thereby giving rise to an appearance of bias”; and second, “whether and to what extent the arbitrator may do so without disclosure”.¹³⁴

72. Of special interest is the LMAA’s intervention in that case, which could broadly be summarised as follows: first, “multiple appointments are relatively common under [the LMAA’s] procedures because they frequently arise out of the same incident”; second, “[s]peed and simplicity are necessary because of the tight limitation periods in maritime claims”; and third, “[t]here is a relatively small pool of specialist arbitrators whom [the] parties use repeatedly”.¹³⁵ The Court’s attention was also drawn to the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest, which acknowledge that multiple appointments in maritime and commodities arbitration may be consistent with the Guidelines.¹³⁶

73. Lord Hodge, who delivered the leading judgment, held that arbitrators were under no duty to disclose multiple references in fields such as maritime, sports and commodities arbitration, because multiple appointments are regarded as acceptable practice in these fields and do not call into question an arbitrator’s impartiality.¹³⁷ Indeed, these practices exist precisely because of the strong desire for specialist expertise in these sectors.¹³⁸

74. At the same time, we should recognise that this balance might be struck differently in other contexts.¹³⁹ A prominent example is investor-state arbitration, where arbitrator appointments have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. Recurring concerns include “double hatting”, where arbitrators concurrently act as counsel in other investor-state disputes involving similar or overlapping issues, and “issue conflicts”, where arbitrators are accused of bias due to previously expressed views on material legal points.¹⁴⁰

75. The practice of multiple appointments thus illustrates an important lesson about contextuality, which is that it operates as a double-edged principle. To embrace contextuality is to proactively assimilate and optimise those features that would serve particular disputes well, but this equally requires us to assiduously guard against those features that may not travel as well.

V. Conclusion

76. Let me close by taking us back to the inaugural Cedric Barclay Memorial Lecture, where Lord Mustill sounded a clarion call in these terms: “The voice of maritime arbitration is not heard as it should be. Too little is said to those who ought to be listening, about its practices, importance and its theory … Writers with the most powerful influence … leave maritime arbitration largely out of account. This is not surprising because no one takes the trouble to tell them even that maritime arbitration exists, or anything about it”.¹⁴¹

77. Those remarks were made in 1991 but to some degree, they still resonate today, in the face of challenges that are more urgent and complex than before. In an arbitration landscape that is much more crowded and industrialised, the voice of maritime arbitration risks being drowned out by the dominance of institutional arbitration, the prevalence of formalised and standardised procedures and the ascendancy of the lawyer-arbitrator. 

78. This raises a fundamental question: what story of maritime arbitration do we choose to tell – to the users whom it exists to serve, to the next generation of maritime practitioners, and to the wider arbitration community? 

79. I hope to have presented maritime arbitration as a living tradition that exemplifies the law’s evolving capacity to serve commercial needs. But I also hope to have shown that it is not a secluded bay safely sheltered from the challenges confronting the wider arbitration community. But just as maritime arbitration has weathered countless storms and adapted dynamically to the demands of commerce, I have every confidence that it will navigate these challenges with agility and resilience.

80. I hope that the excellent work that you are all doing will become an even greater source of inspiration to the wider dispute resolution community. This week’s programme – which features an outstanding range of topics and brings together a truly impressive array of speakers from maritime centres worldwide – will undoubtedly advance this cause. 

81. I congratulate the organisers on assembling this superb programme and I thank you all so very much. I wish you a most enriching and enlightening conference. Thank you.