Read the full interview below:

Q: What inspired your passion for cross-border dispute resolution, and how has this influenced your perspectives and values in approach to global arbitration practices?

I didn’t know about arbitration or cross-border dispute resolution, much less have a passion for it, when I started practicing law. My journey wasn’t fuelled by passion at the outset but rather by timing and seizing and being prepared for opportunities.

I was a trailing spouse when my husband’s job relocated us from Malaysia to Singapore. At that point, I had six years of experience in litigation and law clerking for justices in the Philippines. I knew I couldn’t pursue the same path in Singapore, so I decided to study again. That’s when I came across international arbitration through courses taught by Professor Lawrence Boo, a pre-eminent Singaporean arbitrator and academic and the first CEO and registrar of the SIAC. I realized it was something I could build a career on while being based in Singapore, though I had no idea where to start.

By chance, Professor Boo had an opening in his chambers, and I began as an intern. I later became a tribunal secretary for cases he arbitrated, as well as for other leading arbitrators in the chambers such as Alan Thambiayah and (now DIFC Judge) Andrew Moran, KC. I had the honor of being appointed as arbitrator as well at the time. My experience clerking for the no-nonsense (ret.) Court of Appeals Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores in the Philippines prepared me well for this role.

Being surrounded by these legal minds and observing their approaches to managing arbitrations and hearings greatly influenced me—whether as arbitrator or counsel. Over time, I developed my own approach and grew into the practice without deviating too much from best practices, further refined through experience working in jurisdictions where arbitration or offshore litigation and mediations weren’t yet widely accepted or fully embraced.

On counsel work, what fuels me are the colleagues and collaborators across jurisdictions who bring in the energy, enthusiasm and relentlessness in maximizing positive outcomes for the clients. It takes a lot to sustain that momentum, that energy, when we have an active arbitration matter. It takes teamwork to be able to sustain that in the long-term while checking out on each other, ensuring that each is proceeding in a sustainable manner, and not burning out, especially in a fast-paced environment practising in a continually evolving area of law.

 Q: You have built up extensive experience in dispute resolution, spanning roles such as arbitrator, counsel, mediator, and litigator, representing clients across various key hearing jurisdictions.

Have you noticed any key differences in how arbitration is approached in each jurisdiction? Additionally, what unique insights or challenges have you encountered throughout this broad and diverse exposure?

Each jurisdiction has its nuances. Singapore’s efficiency and pro-arbitration judiciary make it an ideal hub for arbitration.  Arbitrations in Singapore can be straightforward absent any ancillary issues that can be present or made present by petty opponents in lesser mature jurisdictions. Vietnam’s evolving framework often involves navigating procedural complexities and some level of resistance to offshore seats and foreign governing laws. In Japan, the emphasis on consensus reflects its cultural preference for domestic litigation, though this is slowly changing. The U.S. adopts a highly adversarial approach, with its discovery process being a unique challenge altogether. Meanwhile, I see more Philippine law firms now leading arbitration cases in Singapore and adopting best practices that is less adversarial.

These differences highlight the need to tailor strategies when acting as counsel or tailoring case management techniques for each jurisdiction, without deviating too much away from best practices. The challenge lies in finding that tricky balanced approach permitted under the various laws applicable in the proceedings.

I am also grateful for the multidisciplinary, multi-jurisdiction experience “on-the-ground” or “on the battlefield”.  That helped me understand better the clients’ motivations, and requirements that are best achieved when lawyers get out of the proverbial “ivory tower”. This is so most especially for clients doing business in developing economies where the legal framework is not as robust as what one might expect in arbitration hubs, where government institutions may not yet be as exposed to international best practices, and the relevant treaties as one might expect for government institutions in legal hubs.

As an arbitrator or mediator, I’ve developed a better understanding for counsel from non-hub jurisdictions who may be advocating their first arbitration or mediation case. While maintaining due process and efficiency obligations, I balance it with some degree of empathy for counsel who may not know, for example, how hearing bundle of documents are prepared, both hard and electronic forms, and guide them in the process.

My experience as counsel on-the-ground has also shown the importance of understanding why a significant number of awards are set aside in non-hub jurisdictions, where grounds may differ significantly from grounds allowed in mature arbitration hubs. As arbitrator, I adopt measures set out in a procedural order to avoid those grounds relied by non-hub courts in setting aside.

I am also mindful of how I manage cases as arbitrator or mediator where the matters are poorly documented or where the counsel’s advice may not align with how I would have advised the clients if I were the counsel. Rather than criticize counsel in front of their clients during hearings or mediations, I focus on constructive solutions. Advocacy is stressful enough without added embarrassment, and professionalism demands we uplift the practice by not putting counsel under the bus.

Q: Given your expertise in dispute resolution within the oil and gas sector, what trends or developments do you foresee in this field within the region, and how might these influence the Singapore office’s role in supporting the industry’s evolving needs?

The energy sector is constantly transitioning. Traditional sources are shifting toward renewables, and this period of transition (i.e. the energy transition) brings its own set of challenges. Disputes over energy contracts and energy-related infrastructure projects have increased.

Another issue may arise from countries reneging on their commitments under the Paris Agreement or withdrawing entirely. While private contracts may not face immediate impact, changes in state policies can lead to disputes over existing agreements and influence future negotiations. Conflicts often escalate when one party seeks to exploit legal and regulatory changes to avoid obligations and/or defend arbitration claims.

Our Singapore team will be working alongside our Tokyo team. Together, we are well-positioned to guide clients through these complexities, ensuring that evolving regulatory frameworks, changing the “rules in the middle of the game” and contractual risks are effectively managed or mitigated as early as at the contracting stage.