Interviews
#10QuestionswithMaxwell Interview Series: Paul Tan, One Essex Court
In this #10QuestionsWithMaxwell interview, we feature Paul Tan, International counsel and arbitrator at One Essex Court, based in Singapore.
Paul Tan specialises in international arbitration (commercial and investor-state), litigation (trials and appeals) and arbitration-related litigation. He regularly leads the advocacy for his clients. Paul was called to the Bar in Singapore in 2007 and to Middle Temple in 2012.
He acts for international corporations, global insurers, banks and financial institutions, funds and governments across a range of industries and concerns, including telecoms, technology and media, natural and renewable resources, and corporate governance.
Paul has also been appointed an expert on Singapore law and sits as an arbitrator in matters before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the International Chambers of Commerce (ICC). He is also on the Panel of Arbitrators of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) and appears as counsel before the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC).
In this interview, Paul Tan discusses key trends in international arbitration, his move to One Essex Court, and shares his most pivotal moments in his career.
Read the full interview below:
Q: Can you tell us how your journey in arbitration began, and what drew you to specialize in international arbitration?
International arbitration 20 years ago did not have the attention that it now has in Singapore or even globally. I did not study the subject in my undergraduate years. My first taste of it was when I clerked for the Supreme Court and assisted in the Fairmont decision, which articulated a framework for natural justice challenges against awards. Subsequently, I worked with the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon (at the time, he had returned to practice at Rajah & Tann) on a number of commercial and investor-state arbitrations – that was when I grew into the practice.
Q: Looking back, what have been the most pivotal moments in your career as an international arbitration practitioner?
It is difficult to define particular moments as this has been – and remains – a journey. A few things came together. First, I took the opportunity on the BCL course to study international law and arbitration. I felt I needed a holistic grounding if I were to pursue this field further.
Second, and thanks to the Singapore Academy of Law, I had the immense privilege in the two years after that to work with a number of barristers in London (Toby Landau KC, Salim Moollan KC, Joe Smouha KC, Professor Dan Sarooshi KC and Jern-Fei Ng KC in particular). This propelled my practical understanding of the area. I also ventured to Geneva and spent the autumn of 2012 in Lalive, learning how ‘the continent’ approach arbitration.
This experience and the relationships fostered were instrumental in the years after I returned to Singapore. Instructions came through those relationships. I was also, possibly at the time, the only Singaporean practitioner with experience in investor-state arbitrations. When there was a set-aside challenge to an investment award (Swissborough Diamonds v Lesotho), Sam Wordsworth KC (whom I had met in London previously) referred the matter to me. Together, we successfully set aside the award.
Q: What are the key trends you’re observing in international arbitration today, particularly in Asia-Pacific?
First, international arbitration has taken hold in APAC as the default mechanism for cross-border transactions. APAC is also where some of the most interesting economic developments are occurring – including in the renewables and technology space. These will ensure that the volume, scale and complexity of arbitrations will continue rising – making APAC one of the most dynamic regions to practise in.
Second, arbitral institutions in APAC have become a lot more sophisticated. They are an essential part of the ecosystem – essential to maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the process, essential to promoting new arbitrators. In addition to the major institutions, there are now many local or national institutions sprouting out, which we would do well to support and encourage.
Third, while arbitration is here to stay, there are continued efforts to try and improve the system. One area that is important is ethics – how do you set standards for parties and practitioners coming from very different legal and economic backgrounds? Another area is how to ensure the substantive quality of the decisions. Home to some of the largest and most important arbitral institutions globally, APAC needs to be part of these conversation.
Q: You have always been very open on your views of the importance of mentorship in training young lawyers. Are there any programs or initiatives you’ve envisioned that could better support younger lawyers while also engaging seasoned professionals in meaningful ways?
There is no substitute for mentorship throughout one’s life. Many organisations, firms and institutions now acknowledge this and run mentorship programmes, sometimes across the profession (the Law Society’s mentorship scheme comes to mind) or within the arbitration space (ICCA and the Rising Arbitrators Initiative also run mentorship or similar programmes). Some programmes are less formal – they might be supper clubs or networking events where younger lawyers can meet more senior practitioners. These are all positive developments that younger practitioners should take advantage of, and senior practitioners should contribute towards.
Q: What influenced your decision to make the shift to One Essex Court as an arbitrator and international counsel?
This is a homecoming of sorts; an opportunity to reconnect with and focus on my first love – advocacy. Since my introduction to the independent bar in London 13 years ago, I had always thought that I would like to fashion a practice that would enable me to focus on advocacy. However, the legal market at the time was still centered around large law firms as the main source for good legal work.
But in the last 5 – 6 years, we have seen a rise in the number of boutique firms. We have also seen an exponential growth in the number of firms from the region conducting arbitrations in Singapore. These developments present opportunities to co-counsel with such firms. Furthermore, two of the most frequently chosen governing laws in this region are Singapore and English law – so being qualified in these two jurisdictions would hopefully make me more valuable to instructing firms.
While my focus remains on counsel work, I am open to accepting appointments as arbitrator. There is an opportunity to develop the next generation of independent, Singapore law-qualified arbitrators.
Q: What has been the most rewarding aspect in your career, and what keeps you motivated?
The relationships and friendships that I’ve developed have been the most satisfying aspect of my career so far. I have grown so much as a person – and a professional – because of the genuine generosity and support of so many. The fact that others want to see you succeed makes me motivated.
Q: If you could reform one procedural aspect of international arbitration, what would it be and why?
I don’t see an immediate need for procedural reform. What I would try to get rid of is the inertia of doing every case the same way. In fact, it is ironic that we talk about procedural reform in arbitration because it is antithetical to the spirit of arbitration to speak of ‘procedure’ as if there is a set formula like the rules of court. Some cases may not need a second of memorials; some may not need expert evidence depending how issues are pleaded; and so on. Parties, counsel and tribunals need to apply their minds collaboratively and in good faith to figure out what makes sense for the particular case.
Q: Can you share a memorable experience or case from your career that significantly impacted your approach to arbitration?
One of the challenges, but also opportunities, about international arbitrational arbitration is the ability to learn about each other’s legal systems and adapt. For example, in systems where there is no discovery, it is not uncommon that parties may simply not keep documents. So we constantly have to try and understand where the other party is coming from, what their legal traditions are, and navigate that in order to effectively represent our client’s interests.
Q: What do you think distinguishes an exceptional advocate in international arbitration?
The patience to listen – to the tribunal, to opposing counsel, to answers being given by witnesses, and to cultural nuances. Only then can you respond effectively.
Q: If you weren’t in your current profession, what profession would you be in?
A restaurant critic, hopefully for the New York Times.
From left to right: the launch of The Singapore International Arbitration Act: A Commentary, co-authored by Paul and published by OUP; a photo with Chef Anh Sung-jae at his Seoul restaurant, Mosu, in 2022; and cruising along Halong Bay.