On 27 November 2025, TKI (Singapore) LLP Partner Earl Rivera-Dolera spoke at the JCAA Global Arbitration Forum 2025 in Tokyo on the panel “Fast and Fair: Balancing Party Benefits and Pitfalls in Documents-Only Arbitration” alongside Dominic Sharman (Baker and McKenzie), Lars Markert (Nishimura and Asahi), Tomoki Yanagisawa (TMI and Associates), Rodolphe Ruffie-Farrugia (K&L Gates), ably moderated by Michael Mroczek (Nozomi Sogo). The session brought together arbitrators, in-house counsel, and external advisers to interrogate a procedural option whose appeal continues to grow, and whose pitfalls are increasingly being tested in the courts.
This newsletter distills the discussion into a practical guide for parties weighing whether, and how, to take a dispute to a documents-only resolution.

A Procedure Whose Time Has Come

Documents-only arbitration is no longer a niche workaround for very small or very simple cases. Driven by client demand for proportionality, faster cycle times, and predictable cost outcomes, it is now a settled procedural option in many of the world’s leading institutional rules. Nowhere is this more visible than under the JCAA Commercial Arbitration Rules (2021), where the Expedited Arbitration Procedures apply automatically to disputes involving claims of JPY 300 million (approximately USD 2 million) or less. Under that framework, a sole arbitrator typically renders a final award within three or six months on a documents-based footing, unless the tribunal considers a hearing necessary.

The advantages, when the format is used appropriately, are real. Compressed schedules deliver earlier outcomes and commercial finality. Costs fall as hearing days, witness preparation, and travel logistics drop out of the budget. Cross-border disputes become easier to manage when scheduling no longer turns on assembling counsel teams, witnesses, and tribunal members in a single city on a single date. And, perhaps most underappreciated, a well-run documents-only case forces parties and tribunals to focus on what is genuinely dispositive rather than what is merely available.

But the format is not a universal solvent. Whether documents-only delivers leverage or backfires depends on the nature of the dispute and the discipline of the parties, and the doctrinal terrain on enforceability is moving quickly enough that getting the design wrong has real consequences.

When the Format Creates Leverage — and When It Backfires

Documents-only proceedings work best where the dispute turns on contract interpretation, paper trails, and objective records: emails, payment records, schedules, technical reports, and the like. They suit cashflow disputes, smaller-value claims, and matters where business certainty matters more than procedural perfection. For a claimant with a strong contemporaneous record, the format is a strategic accelerator.

The format backfires, however, where the case turns on credibility, state of mind, or contested factual narratives that cannot fairly be resolved on a paper record. It also backfires where one party attempts to “win by volume,” i.e., burying the tribunal in document dumps that obscure rather than illuminate. Tribunals confronted with that tactic tend to respond by tightening the procedure mid-stream, which rarely benefits the party that triggered the response.

The strategic conclusion is straightforward. Choose documents-only deliberately, not by default, and only after a candid assessment of where the case will actually be won.

Pleading and Evidence Discipline

In a documents-only case, pleadings have to do more work than in a conventional arbitration. The tribunal will not have the benefit of opening or closing oral submissions to clarify the issues; the written record must speak for itself. That places a premium on disciplined drafting.

A well-drafted PO1 will be explicit about the agreed meaning of “documents-only” in the specific case. Does it mean no evidentiary hearing, no oral submissions, or limited oral submissions only? It will set page limits and exhibit caps, and spell out the consequences of non-compliance. It will impose “no new case” rules — cut-off dates beyond which new arguments, authorities, and evidence will not be entertained — and create a clear mechanism for tribunal questions and targeted document calls.

Witness evidence deserves specific attention. It is genuinely probative where the dispute hinges on credibility, oral representations, reliance, or disputed instructions, or where the documentary record is incomplete and cannot reliably resolve key factual disputes. It is mostly cost without value where statements merely narrate documents already in evidence, or where the dispute is fundamentally about contractual allocation of risk or objective performance metrics. PO1 should reflect that distinction rather than apply a one-size-fits-all approach.

Spotlight:
A tribunal-led Q&A phase — issued after first submissions and before document production — that surfaces the tribunal’s real decision-path, replaces a second round of briefs and broad disclosure, and reduces “not heard” risk while preserving the speed of an on-the-papers process.

The Responsive Roadmap Framework in Practice

One procedural innovation proposed by Rodolphe Ruffie-Farrugia, and discussed at length on the Tokyo panel, is what may be described as a Responsive Roadmap Framework: a tribunal-led question-and-answer phase designed to keep documents-only arbitration both efficient and fair. The concept is straightforward. After the first round of written submissions, and before any document production, the tribunal issues a list of targeted questions and, where necessary, specific document requests. The responding party files answers and the identified documents on a short timetable. The other party then has a defined right to comment, in writing or in a brief oral submissions session if needed.

The benefits are significant. The tribunal surfaces what it needs to decide the case rather than relying on assumptions. The risk of unpleaded points is reduced because concerns are flagged explicitly and submissions are invited. And the Q&A phase can expressly replace a second round of briefs, broad disclosure, and even a hearing, unless a narrow hearing becomes necessary to resolve a discrete issue.

For counsel, the implications are practical. Effective Q&A response requires preparation: an internal “record map” showing where each pleaded element is proved; a “Q&A readiness file” of key documents, chronology, and citations; and a discipline that responses must answer the question and only cite documents already in the record (or specifically requested by the tribunal). A short “no-new-case checklist” before filing (i.e., no new heads of claim, no reframing, no new factual theories) protects against drift and keeps the award’s reasoning anchored to what the parties have actually pleaded.

Lessons from the Singapore Case Law

Three Singapore Court of Appeal decisions illuminate the enforceability risks that can arise when documents-only procedures are not carefully designed. Read together, they trace the contours of what a fair documents-only arbitration must look like.

• CBS v CBP [2021] SGCA 4. The Court upheld the setting aside of an award where the arbitrator had barred all witness testimony despite the absence of any documents-only agreement between the parties. The case is a sharp reminder that, where credibility is central, blocking oral evidence without clear party agreement on documents-only arbitration can amount to a breach of fair-hearing standards.

• Wan Sern Metal Industries v Hua Tian Engineering [2025] SGCA 5. The Court revisited the contours of natural justice in the specific setting of documents-only arbitration, emphasising the balance between acceleration and procedural fairness. The decision reinforces that, if a point is potentially decisive, parties must be given a fair chance to address it. Disciplined pleadings, a clear issues list, and targeted invitations for submissions are essential.

• BZW v BZV [2022] SGCA 1. The Court set aside part of an award for breach of fair hearing, observing that manifestly incoherent reasoning can evidence a broken decision-path and a failure to truly hear a party. Documents-only awards are not exempt from the requirement of intelligible reasoning. They must still show a clear path from issue to evidence to finding to legal consequence, and reviewing courts will look for that path.

Four Practical Safeguards

Pulling these threads together, a small number of practical safeguards consistently reduce enforcement risk in documents-only cases.

First, lock in clarity early. Confirm whether the case is truly documents-only and what that means in the specific dispute, and record the agreement in a robust PO1.

Second, use a disciplined list of issues. A tribunal-approved, living list prevents drift into unpleaded terrain and ensures parties know what they must prove.

Third, for arbitrators, consider a short, time-boxed oral submissions session. Where the record is dense, or there is a risk of misunderstanding, one to three hours of tightly managed argument (virtual if needed) can deliver outsized clarity. The guardrails are essential: no new evidence, no new case, a tribunal-issued questions list circulated in advance, short speaking notes, and a post-hearing “answers to questions” note if required.

Fourth, for arbitrators, write award-safe reasons. Identify the decisive issues. Summarise each side’s best point on each issue. Explain why one side succeeds, using the documents that matter. Make the path visible: issue, evidence, finding, legal consequence.

Closing: Making “Fast” Compatible with “Fair”

Documents-only arbitration is not simply “no hearing.” It is a deliberate design choice that can deliver speed, proportionality, and commercial finality, provided the procedure is drafted with precision, safeguarded in PO1, and supported by a tribunal-led process that keeps parties heard and the award enforceable. The cases setting aside flawed documents-only arbitral awards are not arguments against the format. They are arguments for using it carefully and in a considered manner.

Get in touch

If you would like to explore whether a documents-only format is suitable for a particular dispute, or how to build enforceability safeguards into your arbitration clauses and case strategy, TKI’s international arbitration team would be pleased to assist. Earl Rivera-Dolera advises clients on international arbitration, cross-border litigation, and dispute-resolution strategy, with particular experience in energy, shipping, construction, infrastructure, and M&A disputes.

（By： Earl Rivera-Dolera ）

*This newsletter is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended and should not be construed as legal or tax advice. For more information and questions regarding this article, reach out to us.
Read the Japanese summary HERE.

Earl Rivera-Dolera is a dispute resolution lawyer specializing in international arbitration. Prior to joining the firm, she served as Partner and Head of International Arbitration at Frasers Law Company (formerly Freehills) in Vietnam, where she represented clients in arbitrations under major institutions including ICC, SIAC, JCAA, and HKIAC. She also regularly acts as arbitrator (chair, sole, and party-appointed).
She has extensive experience handling disputes across key jurisdictions such as Japan, Singapore, London, and Vietnam, covering sectors including energy, construction, and cross-border transactions. She has been involved in over 200 matters with total claims exceeding US$10 billion.
in various capacities as arbitrator, counsel-advocate, or tribunal secretary to prominent senior international arbitrators in Singapore, London, and New York.
She is admitted as a solicitor in England and Wales, and as an attorney in New York, Texas, and the Philippines. She is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators.