SINGAPORE TO ALLOW CONDITIONAL FEE ARRANGEMENTS

On 1 November 2021, a bill to permit Conditional Fee Arrangements (CFA) had its first reading in the Singapore Parliament. If the bill is passed, it will permit law firms and lawyers in Singapore to enter into CFAs with their clients in respect of certain types of disputes (whether relating to proceedings in Singapore or any other foreign state), together with related advice and legal services, even if formal legal proceedings are not actually commenced.

This is a further indication of Singapore’s responsiveness to the needs of international commercial parties who are considering using Singapore as an arbitral seat or location for the resolution of their disputes. If passed, this will provide new options for clients for funding their disputes, in addition to third-party funding which, as reported in our previous post, is now also possible for international arbitration proceedings and related court and mediation proceedings, Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) proceedings, domestic arbitration proceedings and related mediation proceedings.

This post provides a high-level overview of the key features of the bill. We will explore the bill, and the options it provides, in more detail once the bill is passed and further information about the implementing regulations is known.

What is a CFA?

Typically, CFAs provide for payment of the lawyer’s standard fees in specified circumstances, i.e. in the event of success if the client’s claim is successful as per a pre-agreed definition of success and also may include an uplift in the amounts to be paid in that event.

CFAs are distinguishable from full contingency or damages-based arrangements in which the lawyer is paid a percentage of the damages awarded. Such arrangements are prohibited in Singapore, and that will stay the same even if the bill is passed.

What are the proposed requirements of a CFA?

According to the proposed bill, to be valid and enforceable, the CFA must:

  • be in writing and signed by the client;
  • not provide for the remuneration or costs to be payable as a percentage or proportion of the amount of damages or other amounts awarded to or recovered by the client in any contentious proceedings;
  • not exclude liability for the lawyer’s negligence or other professional responsibility; and
  • be neither void nor voidable under the common law principles of contract having regard to the circumstances in which the CFA was made and interest of all the parties to the agreement taken as a whole.

Subsidiary legislation to implement safeguards is also anticipated that will prescribe the:

  • types of contentious proceedings that may be the subject of a CFA, the form of the CFA;
  • parties that would have capacity to enter into CFAs;
  • terms and conditions of a CFA;
  • information a lawyer must provide to the client before entering into a CFA; and
  • maximum uplift fee or set guidelines regarding how the uplift fee should be calculated.

It is anticipated that, as a minimum, CFAs will be permitted for disputes subject to resolution by international arbitration and mediation, or by the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC).  It is also expected that the Singapore Rules of Court will be updated to include provisions governing the procedure and the assessment of costs payable under a CFA.

How can the CFA be enforced?

The bill provides a framework for the Court of Justice in which the contentious proceedings or any part of the proceedings was conducted (including the SICC), or if the proceedings were not conducted in a Court of Justice, then the General Division of the Singapore High Court, to determine matters relating to the enforcement and determination of questions relating to the validity or effect of a CFA, as well as to safeguard clients from overcharging or deal with the impact on a CFA of a change in a client’s law firm.

Will the CFA affect the costs recoverable from the losing party?

Under the proposed bill, a CFA will not affect the recovery of costs from the client by another party (e.g. if the client subject to the CFA loses a case and has an adverse costs order made against them, the CFA will not operate to prevent the winning party from recovering its costs). Also, if a CFA provides for payment by a client to its lawyers of an uplift fee, the bill provides that such uplift fee cannot be recovered as part of an adverse costs order against a losing party. The client can only recover from the losing party the normal amount of costs, as if there had been no CFA. This differs from some jurisdictions which may allow the recovery of such uplift fees. In any event, the bill provides that client cannot recover from the losing party more than the amount actually paid to the client’s lawyer.

How can you benefit from CFAs?

The proposed changes provide further encouragement to parties to specify arbitration in Singapore or choose the SICC as their dispute resolution forum in their commercial contracts.

This is particularly relevant at a time when an increasing number of parties affected by post-pandemic events have meritorious claims, but may be unable to commence their claims due to a temporary liquidity or cash flow issues. The adoption of CFAs could therefore promote access to justice by allowing parties with difficult financial circumstances to work with their lawyers and/or third-party funders to bring meritorious claims through arbitration and SICC proceedings in Singapore.

The use of the CFAs will also provide sophisticated commercial parties with additional alternatives for managing legal costs risk, through risk sharing with their lawyers.

Our approach to CFAs

CFAs are commonly used in many common law countries. Our Litigation Funding and Risk Transfer Insurance practice for dispute resolution is a unique offering in the global market. We are well versed on the opportunities and risks in managing disputes with a CFA, and our clients benefit from our knowledge and experience in this space.

We view disputes in the same way that your in-house team approach your business – we make decisions on a risk / reward basis. Whilst recognising the need to deliver high quality legal advice, we know that the management of disputes involves numerous strategic decisions and that an integral part of this decision-making process is the assessment of the potential costs involved.

We pride ourselves on balancing our clients risk profile with our own and accentuate this through our industry leading approach to CFAs.

We are established thought-leaders in the area of third-party funding in international disputes, and we actively demonstrate commitment to continue to be recognised as such globally. We boast the only disputes focused Pricing & Litigation Funding practice in the global market. Our clients can also benefit from our long serving and deeply embedded relationships with all major funders and insurance brokers within the market.

If you want to find out more about the bill, or funding options (including CFAs and Third Party Funding) for disputes in Singapore more generally, please contact Alastair Henderson, Gitta Satryani, Elaine Wong, Tom Furlong, Dan Waldek, Christine Sim, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Alastair Henderson
Alastair Henderson
Partner, Singapore
+65 6868 8058
Gitta Satryani
Gitta Satryani
Partner, Singapore
+65 6868 8067
Tomas Furlong
Tomas Furlong
Partner, Singapore
+65 6868 8085
Daniel Waldek
Daniel Waldek
Of Counsel, Singapore
+65 6868 8068
Christine Sim
Christine Sim
Senior Associate, Singapore
+65 6868 8064

Singapore’s first cryptocurrency dispute to go to trial

There has been a significant increase in interest in, and the use of, cryptocurrencies in recent times. Cryptocurrencies are essentially de-centralised virtual currencies, which are not linked to any particular country, nor regulated by any central bank or monetary authority.

In late December 2017, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) decided that the nation’s first dispute involving cryptocurrency merits a full trial. While this case does not involve questions of the legality of cryptocurrency itself, it involves issues relating to the manner in which such cryptocurrencies are traded.   Continue reading

Amendments to the Singapore International Commercial Court Regime to strengthen Singapore as an international arbitration seat of choice

On 9 January 2018, amendments were passed to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act (“SCJA “) which clarify that the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC“) has jurisdiction to hear proceedings relating to international commercial arbitration.  The amendments also abolish the pre-action certificate procedure for applications to the SICC.

Established in 2015 as the ‘international’ division of the Singapore High Court, the SICC has gone from strength to strength in a short span of time, gaining a reputation for the quality and speed of judgments rendered. Since its establishment the SICC has heard 17 cases on matters ranging from construction, investment, banking and finance, and shipbuilding, all of which are high value cases involving international parties and counsel.

These latest amendments, along with the addition of four new esteemed international jurists to the SICC bench, are intended to further increase the popularity and usage of the SICC, and Singapore as a preferred seat of international arbitration. Continue reading

Full Steam Ahead: Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) issues judgment clarifying the position on what constitutes an offshore case

As we previously reported, the recently established SICC is up and running (see here).  It issued its first judgment in May 2016 (see here) and has since continued to be active in resolving ongoing disputes in a speedy manner, with two more decisions issued in June 2016. In this post, we look at one of these judgments which deals with what constitutes an 'offshore case' for the purposes of the SICC in Teras Offshore Pte Ltd v Teras Cargo Transport (America) LLC[1]. (Click here for the full judgment.)  This is important as this is a key feature of the SICC which allows users to have greater freedom as to the conduct of the case (including the appointment of international counsel).

Continue reading