SMU SIDRA Survey Report 2020

Exhibit 9.2.4 Factors Influencing Choice Hybrid Dispute Resolution Mechanism Compared to Mediation by Respondent User Profile The charts refer to factors influencing Client Users and Legal Users’ choice of Hybrid Dispute Resolution Mechanism compared to Mediation. Note: This question allows for multiple responses. The sum of the percentages may exceed 100% Client Users Legal Users Efficiency Efficiency Cost Cost Speed Speed Enforceability Finality Finality Enforceability Others Others 56% 52% 48% 40% 24% 16% 53% 53% 52% 48% 47% 5% 9.2.10 Notably, in respondents’ choice of a hybrid mechanism over arbitration, preservation of business relationships (73%) was selected as the main influencing factor, followed by efficiency (47%) and cost (47%). Whereas in respondents’ choice of a hybrid mechanism over mediation, efficiency (53%), cost (53%) and enforceability (48%) were seen to be the main influencing factors. Efficiency and costs are overlapping factors across user selection, suggesting that hybrid mechanisms offer advantages in respect of efficiency and costs compared to standalone arbitration and standalone mediation. Examining these findings from another perspective, this may also reflect users’ concerns with the impairment of business relationships in their choice of standalone arbitration, as well as users’ concerns of enforceability in their choice of standalone mediation. 9.2.11 Looking to the future, the Singapore Convention is likely to address enforceability concerns about international mediation. Additionally, there appears to be a trend of increasing growth in the area of hybrid dispute resolution in Singapore, with the development of the Arb-Med-Arb Protocol (SIAC and SIMC) and the Singapore Infrastructure Dispute Management Protocol (SIMC and SMC) in recent years. 2020 FINAL REPORT 76