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 (2024 Revised Edition)
- Original Commencement: 1 March 2017 (SL 68/2017)
- Key Amendments: Amended by S 384/2021; revised edition dated 18 Dec 2024
- Authorising Act: Civil Law Act 1909 (notably section 5B)
- Key Regulations: Regulation 2 (Definitions); Regulation 3 (Prescribed dispute resolution proceedings); Regulation 4 (Qualifications for “qualifying Third‑Party Funder”)
What Is This Legislation About?
The Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Regulations 2017 (“TPF Regulations”) are subsidiary legislation made under the Civil Law Act 1909. Their practical purpose is to operationalise the Civil Law Act’s third-party funding framework by specifying (i) which dispute resolution matters fall within the statutory third-party funding regime and (ii) what minimum qualifications and ongoing requirements a “qualifying Third‑Party Funder” must meet.
In plain terms, third-party funding is a commercial arrangement where a funder pays some or all of the costs of dispute resolution proceedings in return for a share of the proceeds (or other financial return) if the funded case succeeds. The Singapore regime is designed to allow third-party funding while managing risks such as conflicts of interest, improper influence over litigation strategy, and concerns about access to justice.
These Regulations do not themselves create the right to fund; rather, they define the perimeter of the regime and set eligibility criteria for funders. For practitioners, the Regulations are therefore critical when advising whether a particular funding arrangement is within scope and whether the funder can be treated as a “qualifying Third‑Party Funder” for the purposes of the Civil Law Act.
What Are the Key Provisions?
1. Definitions (Regulation 2)
The Regulations provide interpretive definitions that align with the Civil Law Act and relevant dispute resolution statutes. For example, “arbitration agreement” is defined by reference to the Arbitration Act 2001 and the International Arbitration Act 1994. “award” is similarly defined by reference to the meaning of “award” in those Acts. The Regulations also define “foreign award” by reference to the International Arbitration Act 1994, and “Singapore International Commercial Court” by reference to the Legal Profession Act 1966.
This drafting technique matters for legal accuracy. It ensures that practitioners do not have to reconcile inconsistent definitions across statutes; instead, the Regulations “import” the relevant statutory meanings. When advising clients, you should therefore read the TPF Regulations alongside the referenced provisions in the Arbitration Act 2001, International Arbitration Act 1994, and Legal Profession Act 1966.
2. Prescribed dispute resolution proceedings (Regulation 3)
Regulation 3 is the scope provision. It prescribes the “classes of proceedings” that count as “dispute resolution proceedings” for the purposes of section 5B(1) of the Civil Law Act. The list is deliberately broad and covers multiple stages and related processes.
The prescribed proceedings include:
- Arbitration proceedings (Regulation 3(a)).
- Court proceedings arising from or connected with arbitration (Regulation 3(b)). This captures, for example, applications that are ancillary to 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 applications for enforcement of an arbitration agreement (Regulation 3(c)).
- Proceedings for enforcement of awards under the Arbitration Act 2001, and enforcement of awards or foreign awards under the International Arbitration Act 1994 (Regulation 3(d)).
- Mediation proceedings arising out of, or connected with, the arbitration/court/enforcement/stay/enforcement-of-agreement processes (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)).
Practical effect: If the dispute resolution pathway involves arbitration, related court applications, enforcement steps, or mediation connected to those matters, the funding regime is likely engaged. For counsel, this affects due diligence on the funder and the structuring of funding agreements, including whether the funding arrangement is intended to fall within the statutory “qualifying” framework.
3. Qualifications for a “qualifying Third‑Party Funder” (Regulation 4)
Regulation 4 sets eligibility requirements for a third-party funder. It is framed as qualifications and continuing requirements that a qualifying funder must satisfy and continue to satisfy.
Regulation 4(1) requires that the funder:
- Carries on the principal business of funding the costs of dispute resolution proceedings to which it is not a party, whether in Singapore or elsewhere (Regulation 4(1)(a)).
- Meets minimum financial thresholds: paid-up share capital of not less than $5 million (or equivalent in foreign currency), or not less than $5 million (or equivalent) in managed assets (Regulation 4(1)(b)).
Regulation 4(2) and (3): “managed assets”
The Regulations define “managed assets” in a way that is particularly relevant for funders that operate through investor capital pools or discretionary/non-discretionary investment mandates. “Managed assets” includes:
- Discretionary authority assets: moneys and assets contracted to, drawn down by, or under discretionary authority granted by investors to the funder, where the funder carries out fund management (Regulation 4(2)(a)).
- Non-discretionary authority assets: moneys and assets contracted to the funder under non-discretionary authority granted by investors, where the funder carries out fund management (Regulation 4(2)(b)).
- Sub-contracted fund management assets: moneys and assets contracted to the funder but sub-contracted to another party for fund management, whether under discretionary authority or otherwise (Regulation 4(2)(c)).
Regulation 4(3) 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. This is a key evidential point: it focuses on contractual arrangements rather than purely operational control.
Practical effect: For practitioners, these provisions are central to eligibility due diligence. You should assess (i) whether the funder’s principal business is third-party funding of dispute resolution costs (not merely incidental funding), and (ii) whether the funder can demonstrate the required paid-up share capital or managed assets, including how “managed assets” are evidenced through fund management contracts and drawdown arrangements.
How Is This Legislation Structured?
The Regulations are structured as a short instrument with a small number of provisions. The overall architecture is:
- Regulation 1 (Citation): Provides the short title.
- Regulation 2 (Definitions): Defines key terms by reference to other Singapore statutes, ensuring consistent interpretation.
- Regulation 3 (Prescribed dispute resolution proceedings): Lists the categories of proceedings that fall within the Civil Law Act’s third-party funding framework.
- Regulation 4 (Qualifications for “qualifying Third‑Party Funder”): Sets eligibility and continuing requirements, including financial thresholds and the definition of “managed assets”.
Notably, the extract indicates that the Regulations are concise and rely heavily on cross-references to the Civil Law Act and dispute resolution legislation. This means practitioners must read the Regulations as part of a statutory “package” rather than in isolation.
Who Does This Legislation Apply To?
The Regulations apply to parties and transactions that fall within the Civil Law Act’s third-party funding regime. In practice, the most direct beneficiaries are third-party funders seeking to be treated as “qualifying Third‑Party Funder” and parties to dispute resolution proceedings who enter funding arrangements intended to comply with the statutory framework.
Regulation 3’s scope is tied to the type of dispute resolution proceedings (arbitration, related court applications, enforcement, mediation, and SICC proceedings and related appeals/mediation). Regulation 4’s scope is tied to the status and financial capacity of the funder. Accordingly, a funding arrangement connected to prescribed proceedings may require careful structuring and due diligence to ensure that the funder meets the “qualifying” criteria.
Why Is This Legislation Important?
First, the Regulations provide the legal perimeter for third-party funding in Singapore. By prescribing specific dispute resolution proceedings, the Regulations reduce uncertainty about whether a funding arrangement is within the intended statutory scope. This is particularly important for complex disputes that involve multiple procedural steps—such as arbitration plus court applications for stays or enforcement, and mediation connected to those steps.
Second, Regulation 4’s eligibility requirements address market integrity and financial capability. The minimum paid-up share capital or managed assets threshold (at least $5 million) is a gatekeeping mechanism. It helps ensure that funders have sufficient resources to support funded litigation and reduces the risk of funding arrangements collapsing mid-dispute. The detailed definition of “managed assets” also reflects modern funding structures where capital may be held and managed under discretionary or non-discretionary mandates, including through subcontracted fund managers.
Third, the Regulations are practically significant for compliance and contracting. Practitioners advising on funding agreements should treat these provisions as a checklist for funder qualification. Evidence of principal business and of the relevant financial metrics (paid-up share capital or managed assets under fund management contracts) will often be central to negotiations and to any later disputes about whether the funding arrangement is properly within the statutory framework.
Related Legislation
- Civil Law Act 1909 (in particular section 5B)
- Arbitration Act 2001
- International Arbitration Act 1994
- Legal Profession Act 1966 (including provisions defining 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.