Formulating claims for interim measures in construction disputes – guidance from the Singapore court

We recently published a post on the Singapore High Court's decision in DLS v DLT [2025] SGHC 61. The judgment includes helpful commentary on the nature of the relief granted by the tribunal in relation to the Sub-Contractor's claim for interim measures (specifically, orders for payment).  This case is therefore relevant to companies engaged in the construction sector given that these types of claims are common in construction projects, and the ability to obtain timely interim payments can be crucial for maintaining cash flow and mitigating potential losses. This case acts as a reminder that companies should strategically formulate their claims for interim measures to avoid future challenges.

In DLS v DLT, the Sub-Contractor commenced arbitration against the Contractor, claiming losses arising from delays in completion of the project. The Sub-Contractor later sought "urgent interim measures", including in relation to certain payments. In respect of these payments, the arbitral tribunal granted the following relief in its "First Partial Award":

• A Payment Order requiring the Contractor to pay US$172,135.54 monthly to the Sub-Contractor to cover the Sub-Contractor's operational costs until final completion ("Monthly Payment Decision").
• A Payment Order requiring a one-off lump sum payment of US$117,339.48, representing VAT refunds owed ("Lump Sum Payment Decision").

The Contractor subsequently applied to set aside the two decisions referred to above. In assessing the set aside application, the Court had to consider whether the tribunal's decisions in the "First Partial Award" constituted "awards" under section 2 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 ("IAA"), or interim orders under section 12 of the IAA. This distinction was important because an "award" may be set aside (i.e. challenged under section 24 of the IAA or Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, read with section 3 of the IAA), whereas an "interim order", even if financially significant, is not susceptible to being set aside.

Based on its interpretation of the legislation and established legal precedents, the Court identified the following propositions:

• "Orders or directions" under section 12 of the IAA are provisional in nature, i.e. they do not definitively or finally dispose of a preliminary issue or claim in an arbitration.
• A provisional decision is inherently capable of being varied in due course.
• An order for interim payment of damages prior to a final assessment is a provisional decision.
• How a decision is labelled is not decisive as to its nature.

Therefore, the fact that the tribunal's decisions were contained in a document titled the "First Partial Award" did not necessarily mean that the decisions were "awards" under section 2 of the IAA. Similarly, the fact that the Sub-Contractor made an application seeking "interim measures" does not necessarily mean the decisions made on that application were interim "orders or directions" under section 12 of the IAA.

Ultimately, the Court found that the Monthly Payment Decision was an interim order under section 12 of the IAA, on the basis that it was a provisional decision. In particular, the Court found that:

• The Monthly Payment Decision did not definitively or finally dispose of a preliminary issue or claim in the arbitration.
• The Monthly Payment Decision was inherently capable of being varied in due course. Specifically, the tribunal's decision itself recognised that the Sub-Contractor may subsequently be ordered to repay the monthly Payment to the Contractor and so the Monthly Payment Decision was subject to the provision of security by the Sub-Contractor.
• The Monthly Payment Decision was an order for interim payment of damages prior to a final assessment, such that if the Contractor ultimately succeeded on the issue of delay (or succeeded in contending that the Sub-Contractor had no entitlement to compensation for delay), the Sub-Contractor would have to return the monthly payment.  

In contrast, the Court held that the Lump Sum Payment Decision was an award under section 2 of the IAA. In particular, the Court found that:

• The Lump Sum Payment Decision did definitively or finally dispose of a preliminary issue or claim in the arbitration. The tribunal had already found that the relevant sum was "owing and due" (there was no dispute that the VAT refund was payable and would have been paid if the Contractor's bank account had not been frozen), so there was nothing further to be determined at a merits hearing.
• The Lump Sum Payment Decision was not inherently capable of being varied in due course. It did not contemplate that the Sub-Contractor would have to return the lump sum payment to the Contractor. Moreover, the Sub-Contractor was not required to provide security in case of repayment.
• The Lump Sum Payment Decision was not an order for damages prior to a final assessment. Rather, it was an order for the Contractor to pay a sum that the tribunal found to be owing and due to the Sub-Contractor.

Accordingly, the Court held that only the Lump Sum Payment Decision was capable of being set aside (albeit the Court ultimately rejected all grounds raised).

It is therefore critical that if a dispute arises, the party seeking interim measures ensures that the relief sought is carefully formulated, since the nature of the relief granted determines whether it can later be challenged. In particular, the decision in DLS v DLT illustrates that (subject to any arguments regarding substance over form) an order for interim measures, while being provisional, is not generally susceptible to being set aside. Therefore, from a strategic perspective, contractors seeking interim relief for payments on account might increasingly frame requests for relief by reference to interim "orders or directions" to try to take advantage of this position. By securing such interim relief, contractors can ensure they receive necessary payments to maintain operations while awaiting the final resolution of a dispute. This approach may be particularly advantageous in situations where immediate financial support is crucial for the continuation of work and in circumstances where statutory security of payment relief (such as in the United Kingdom, Singapore, Malaysia and Australia) is not available. If it subsequently transpires that the contractor has been overcompensated, this would be taken into account in a tribunal's final award. In this regard, a tribunal's provisional decision may be more similar to a statutory adjudication outcome for a payment claim, which is binding but not necessarily final.

In DLS v DLT , the Court also considered:

• whether new grounds for set aside can be introduced after the statutory time limit for applications has expired; and
• an allegation of apparent bias arising from an arbitrator's non-disclosure.

Further analysis of these issues can be found here.