In Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA (2007), the Singapore Court of Appeal ruled that a Singapore court has no statutory power under the IAA to grant interim orders or relief to assist arbitrations conducted abroad, unless it involved a dispute that was justiciable in Singapore. To address this lacuna, the Amendment Bill inserts a new section 12A that will give the Singapore courts power to grant interim orders in arbitrations held outside Singapore. The section specifically provides that the court will be empowered to make such order whether or not it relates to a matter that is justiciable before a Singapore court

The orders that may be made include orders to freeze the assets of parties. However, unlike the draft bill proposed during the public consultation, the Amendment Bill specifically omits reference to orders for discovery, interrogatories and security of costs. This is because these deal with procedural matters which are for the tribunal to decide, since they relate to the conduct of arbitration.

The Amendment Bill also provides that the court will only grant interim orders in limited situations where the tribunal is unable to act effectively. Pursuant to public feedback, the Explanatory Statement of the Amendment Bill clarifies that this language would also cover the scenario where the foreign tribunal has power to make an interim order, but that order cannot otherwise be enforced in Singapore apart from an application made under the new section 12A. It is worth noting that in NCC International AB v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd (2008), albeit a case dealing with an arbitration conducted in Singapore, the Singapore Court of Appeal had made it clear that its powers to make interim orders should only be used in support of arbitration. This new sub-section inserted by the Amendment Bill reinforces this pro-arbitration approach.

Finally, a new section 12A(3) has been proposed which clarifies that the court has discretion to refuse to exercise its power under the new section 12A if it considers it inappropriate to do so by virtue of the fact that the place of arbitration is outside Singapore or likely to be outside Singapore when it is designated or determined. This is an added safeguard to give the court sufficient flexibility to deal with complicated international disputes.

Currently, section 2(1) of the IAA defines an "arbitration agreement" as an agreement in writing. The Amendment Bill proposes to modernise this definition in Part II of the Act by clarifying that this may be in electronic form, such as e-mail and electronic data messages. In relation to enforcement of foreign awards under Part III of the Act, however, "arbitration agreement" would still be defined with reference to the New York Convention.

Under a new section 19C, the Minister for Law is empowered to designate entities to authenticate, on a non-mandatory basis, "made in Singapore" arbitration awards. At present, there is no public body in Singapore that can authenticate such awards. This has caused difficulties for some parties in enforcing their Singapore arbitration award overseas because some foreign courts require that the awards be duly authenticated before allowing the awards to be enforced. Pursuant to the feedback received, the Ministry has clarified in the Amendment Bill's Explanatory Statement that the authentication by designated entities is not mandatory and is not the sole means of authentication.