Statute Details
- Title: Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Regulations 2017
- Act Code: CLA1909-RG1
- Legislative Type: Subsidiary Legislation (sl)
- Current Status: Current version as at 27 Mar 2026 (with a 2024 Revised Edition)
- Authorising Act: Civil Law Act 1909 (in particular, section 5B)
- Key Provisions (as reflected in the extract): Regulation 2 (Definitions); Regulation 3 (Prescribed dispute resolution proceedings); Regulation 4 (Qualifications for “qualifying Third‑Party Funder”)
- Amendment History (high level): Amended by S 384/2021; revised edition dated 18 Dec 2024
- Related Instruments (from metadata): Arbitration Act 2001; International Arbitration Act 1994; Legal Profession Act 1966
What Is This Legislation About?
The Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Regulations 2017 (“TPF Regulations”) form part of Singapore’s regulatory framework for third-party funding in civil disputes. In plain terms, the Regulations help define when third-party funding arrangements fall within the scope of the Civil Law Act 1909’s third-party funding regime, and they set eligibility requirements for a “qualifying Third‑Party Funder”.
Third-party funding is commonly used in commercial disputes where a party (often a claimant) may not have sufficient resources to pursue or defend proceedings. Instead of the litigant paying all costs directly, a separate funder provides funding in exchange for an economic return, typically linked to the outcome. While third-party funding can improve access to justice, it also raises concerns about conflicts of interest, control over litigation strategy, and the integrity of dispute resolution processes. The Regulations therefore operate as a gatekeeping mechanism: they prescribe the types of dispute resolution proceedings that are covered and specify minimum qualifications for funders to be treated as “qualifying”.
Practically, the TPF Regulations are not a standalone code. They work together with the Civil Law Act 1909 (especially section 5B) and relevant dispute resolution statutes (notably the Arbitration Act 2001, the International Arbitration Act 1994, and the Legal Profession Act 1966). For lawyers, the Regulations are essential because they determine whether a funding arrangement is within the statutory framework and whether the funder meets the threshold to be recognised as “qualifying”.
What Are the Key Provisions?
1. Definitions (Regulation 2)
The Regulations begin by defining key terms used throughout the subsidiary legislation. The definitions are designed to align with the terminology in the underlying arbitration and legal profession statutes. For example, “arbitration agreement” is defined by reference to the Arbitration Act 2001 and the International Arbitration Act 1994, depending on the context. Similarly, “award” is defined by reference to the meaning given in those arbitration statutes. This drafting approach reduces ambiguity and ensures consistency across the legal framework.
The Regulations also define “court” as any court of competent jurisdiction, and “foreign award” by reference to the International Arbitration Act 1994. Importantly for Singapore’s dispute resolution ecosystem, the Regulations define “Singapore International Commercial Court” by reference to section 36O(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966. This matters because the Regulations expressly include proceedings in that court within the prescribed scope (see Regulation 3).
2. Prescribed dispute resolution proceedings (Regulation 3)
Regulation 3 is central to determining the scope of the third-party funding regime. It states that, for the purposes of section 5B(1) of the Civil Law Act 1909, specific classes of proceedings are “prescribed dispute resolution proceedings”. In effect, it lists the dispute resolution forums and related procedural steps that are covered.
The prescribed proceedings include:
- Arbitration proceedings (Regulation 3(a)).
- Court proceedings connected to arbitration, including proceedings arising from or out of, or in any way connected with, arbitration proceedings (Regulation 3(b)). This captures ancillary applications that may be brought in court in support of arbitration.
- Applications for a stay of proceedings under section 6 of the Arbitration Act 2001 or section 6 of the International Arbitration Act 1994, and any other application for enforcement of an arbitration agreement (Regulation 3(c)). These are the typical “anti-suit”/jurisdictional enforcement steps.
- Enforcement proceedings for awards, including enforcement of an award under the Arbitration Act 2001 and enforcement of an award or foreign award under the International Arbitration Act 1994 (Regulation 3(d)).
- Mediation proceedings arising out of or connected with the arbitration-related proceedings listed above (Regulation 3(e)).
- Proceedings commenced in the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) while they remain in the SICC (Regulation 3(f)).
- Appeal proceedings arising from decisions made in SICC proceedings while those proceedings remained in the SICC (Regulation 3(g)).
- Mediation proceedings arising out of the SICC proceedings (Regulation 3(h)).
From a practitioner’s perspective, Regulation 3 is valuable because it clarifies that the regime is not limited to the “main” arbitration hearing. It extends to enforcement, jurisdictional applications, and mediation steps that are connected to those arbitration or SICC processes. This is particularly important for counsel structuring funding arrangements across the lifecycle of a dispute—e.g., funding an arbitration and also anticipating mediation or enforcement steps.
3. Qualifications for a “qualifying Third‑Party Funder” (Regulation 4)
Regulation 4 sets out the qualifications and continuing requirements that a third-party funder must satisfy to be a “qualifying Third‑Party Funder” for the purposes of section 5B(10) of the Civil Law Act 1909. The Regulations focus on two main eligibility criteria: (i) the funder’s business profile and (ii) its financial capacity.
Regulation 4(1)(a): Principal business requirement
A qualifying funder must carry on the principal business of funding the costs of dispute resolution proceedings to which it is not a party. This requirement ensures that the funder is genuinely in the business of dispute funding, rather than merely providing ad hoc support. It also ties the funding activity to proceedings where the funder is not itself a litigant or party, preserving the third-party nature of the funding arrangement.
Regulation 4(1)(b): Capital or managed assets threshold
The funder must have paid-up share capital of not less than $5 million (or the equivalent in foreign currency), or have not less than $5 million (or equivalent) in managed assets. This is a minimum financial threshold intended to ensure that funders have sufficient resources to meet their funding obligations.
Regulation 4(2) and (3): “Managed assets” explained
The Regulations define “managed assets” broadly. It includes moneys and assets that are (a) contracted to, drawn down by, or under the discretionary authority granted by investors to the funder, where the funder is carrying out fund management; (b) contracted under non-discretionary authority where the funder is carrying out fund management; and (c) assets that have been sub-contracted to another party but for which the other party is carrying out fund management—whether under discretionary authority or otherwise.
Regulation 4(3) further clarifies that moneys and assets are “contracted to” a third-party funder if they are the subject matter of a contract for fund management between the funder and its investors. For lawyers, this definition is practically important when assessing whether a funder meets the capital threshold through investor-backed structures, including discretionary/non-discretionary arrangements and subcontracted fund management models.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The TPF Regulations are structured as a short set of provisions that operate by reference to the Civil Law Act 1909. In the extract provided, the Regulations contain:
Regulation 1 (Citation) identifies the instrument.
Regulation 2 provides definitions, largely by cross-referencing the Arbitration Act 2001, the International Arbitration Act 1994, and the Legal Profession Act 1966.
Regulation 3 prescribes the classes of proceedings that qualify as “prescribed dispute resolution proceedings” for the Civil Law Act’s third-party funding framework.
Regulation 4 sets the qualifications and continuing requirements for a “qualifying Third‑Party Funder”, including the principal business and minimum financial capacity (paid-up share capital or managed assets), together with a detailed definition of “managed assets”.
Although the metadata mentions “Section 2017: Definitions” and “Section 3: For the purposes of section 5B(1) of the Act…”, the operative text in the extract is presented as Regulations 1–4. In practice, practitioners should verify the numbering in the official revised edition, but the substance is clear: definitions, prescribed proceedings, and funder eligibility.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Regulations apply primarily to third-party funders seeking to operate within Singapore’s statutory third-party funding regime under the Civil Law Act 1909. To be treated as a “qualifying Third‑Party Funder”, the funder must meet the eligibility criteria in Regulation 4 and must be funding costs of dispute resolution proceedings that fall within the prescribed categories in Regulation 3.
They also indirectly affect parties and counsel involved in arbitration, related court applications, enforcement proceedings, mediation connected to those processes, and proceedings in the Singapore International Commercial Court. When structuring funding arrangements, parties must consider whether the proceedings are within the prescribed scope and whether the funder is qualified. Even where the Regulations do not directly regulate litigants’ conduct, they shape the legal permissibility and compliance expectations around third-party funding arrangements.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
The TPF Regulations are important because they provide the compliance “building blocks” for Singapore’s third-party funding policy. By prescribing the relevant proceedings and setting minimum qualification standards for funders, the Regulations reduce uncertainty for market participants and help ensure that third-party funding is used in a controlled and credible manner.
From an enforcement and risk-management standpoint, the Regulations help lawyers advise clients on whether a funding arrangement is likely to fall within the statutory framework. The principal business requirement and the $5 million threshold (paid-up share capital or managed assets) are objective criteria that can be evidenced through corporate documents and investor/fund management arrangements. The detailed definition of “managed assets” is particularly helpful for funders that operate through investor capital pools or managed investment structures, as it clarifies what counts toward the threshold.
For dispute resolution strategy, Regulation 3’s inclusion of mediation and enforcement-related steps means that funding may be structured to cover the full dispute lifecycle. Counsel should take care to map the procedural stages—arbitration, court applications connected to arbitration, enforcement of awards, and mediation—against the prescribed categories. This is especially relevant in cross-border disputes where enforcement and jurisdictional challenges are common.
Related Legislation
- Civil Law Act 1909 (in particular section 5B)
- Arbitration Act 2001
- International Arbitration Act 1994
- Legal Profession Act 1966 (including provisions relating to the Singapore International Commercial Court)
Source Documents
This article provides an overview of the Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Regulations 2017 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the official text for authoritative provisions.