Interviews
#10QuestionswithMaxwell Interview Series: Mohammed Reza, Withers KhattarWong
Mohammed Reza is a disputes partner at Withers KhattarWong and heads the international arbitration practice in Singapore. He regularly advises financial institutions and multinational corporations on disputes spanning diverse business sectors, and provides guidance on sensitive, complex, cross-border employment matters. Described by legal directories as “calm, courteous, scrupulously fair and absolutely phenomenal” and as “warm, friendly and disarmingly bright”. Reza is an elected Fellow of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators (SIArb), a panel arbitrator with the Maldives International Arbitration Centre, and a Specialist Mediator with the Singapore International Mediation Centre.
Beyond his active contributions to the legal profession through appointments and involvement with Law Society of Singapore and Pro Bono SG, Reza has also contributed to publications on commercial litigation and international arbitration, most recently the Singapore chapter on International Arbitration Laws and Regulations 2026 for the publication Global Legal Insights. Recognised by clients and opposing counsel alike for his calm, measured and strategic approach, Reza has built a reputation for navigating sophisticated cross-border disputes with quiet authority, professionalism and sound judgment.
For more information, please refer to Mohammed Reza | Withers KhattarWong.
Read the full interview below:
Q: Can you briefly describe your arbitration practice and the types of disputes you most frequently handle?
My practice sits at the intersection of international arbitration and complex commercial litigation, with a strong international dimension. I act primarily for financial institutions, fund managers, multinational corporations, and high-net-worth individuals across a wide range of sectors: energy and infrastructure, financial services and funds, and technology, among others. A significant part of my practice involves multi-jurisdictional disputes, where questions of cross-border enforcement, governing law, and coordinating parallel proceedings in different forums are very much live considerations.
I also have a substantive employment law practice, which increasingly intersects with international arbitration, particularly in cross-border executive disputes and matters involving significant regulatory exposure. More broadly, I advise on anti-bribery and corruption issues and data protection, areas that are becoming increasingly relevant in the dispute resolution context. What ties all of this together is a focus on delivering clear, commercially grounded advice in situations that are invariably complex and high-stakes.
Q: What initially drew you to international arbitration as a career?
I think, like many practitioners of my generation in Singapore, I came to international arbitration somewhat organically rather than by a clearly charted path. What drew me in was the intellectual rigour that the practice demands. International arbitration sits at the confluence of substantive legal analysis, procedural complexity, cross-cultural dynamics, and advocacy, all at once. There is no case that is ever quite like the last.
What I find most compelling is the genuinely international character of the work. You work with parties, counsel, and tribunals from very different legal traditions and cultural backgrounds, and you have to understand and navigate those differences to serve your client effectively. That challenge never really diminishes, and I find it engaging. Over time, I also came to appreciate the role that international arbitration plays in upholding the rule of law across borders.
Q: From your experience, what are the key qualities that make an effective arbitration counsel?
I would identify three qualities above all others. The first is the ability to listen, genuinely and actively. This sounds simple but it is perhaps the most underrated skill in advocacy. Listening carefully to the tribunal, to witnesses, to opposing counsel, and to the cultural and procedural context in which you are operating, is what allows you to respond effectively and adapt your strategy in real time.
The second is the ability to distil complexity into clarity. International arbitrations are invariably document-heavy and legally intricate. The counsel who can take an enormously complex factual and legal matrix, identify the points that truly matter, and present them with precision and economy will almost always outperform someone who simply reproduces the complexity back to the tribunal.
The third is composure under pressure. International arbitration proceedings can be gruelling: timelines, difficult opposing counsel, unexpected turns in the evidence. The ability to remain calm, measured, and strategically focused under those conditions is, I think, what separates good counsel from exceptionally effective counsel.
Q: You have described arbitration in Asia as entering a “transformative period.” What are the key developments driving this transformation?
Several developments are converging to reshape the landscape in ways I think are genuinely significant.
The first is the sheer volume and sophistication of disputes originating in the region. Asia-Pacific is where some of the most consequential economic activity is taking place, in renewables, technology, infrastructure, and financial services, and the disputes that flow from that activity are increasingly large, complex, and legally nuanced. The centre of gravity of international arbitration is slowly shifting eastward, and I think that process is irreversible.
The second is institutional evolution. The major institutions, SIAC, HKIAC, and others, have matured considerably, with rules that are more sophisticated, case management practices that are more rigorous, and international reputations that are firmly established. Alongside them, we are seeing the emergence of newer institutions across the region, which is a healthy development for the ecosystem overall.
The third is the integration of technology into proceedings which has changed the way hearings are conducted, evidence is managed, and documents are handled. The question now is how to harness those tools responsibly and without compromising the integrity of the process.
Finally, I think there is a growing sophistication among users. Parties are better informed, more cost-conscious, and more demanding of their advisers. That is a positive development, even if it places greater pressure on practitioners.
Q: Singapore continues to strengthen its position as a leading arbitration hub. What do you think sets it apart from other jurisdictions?
Singapore’s position rests on a combination of factors that are, taken together, difficult to replicate elsewhere. At the foundation is the rule of law; Singapore has a judiciary that is internationally respected, a legal system that is predictable and transparent, and courts that are genuinely supportive of arbitration rather than adversarial towards it. The jurisprudence on arbitration-related matters, particularly on enforcement, setting aside, and interim relief, is sophisticated and well developed.
Beyond that, the institutional ecosystem is exceptional. You have SIAC as a world-class institution, the Singapore International Commercial Court, Maxwell Chambers as a purpose-built hearings facility, and a deep pool of highly qualified practitioners and arbitrators. The government has also been consistent and farsighted in its support for Singapore as a dispute resolution hub, and that policy commitment matters.
I also think Singapore’s position as a neutral, politically stable, and internationally connected jurisdiction is an underappreciated asset. For parties from across Asia, the Middle East, and beyond, Singapore offers a seat that neither party can characterise as the other’s home turf, and that neutrality is enormously valuable in practice.
Q: Many practitioners talk about efficiency in arbitration. Based on your experience, where do proceedings still fall short in practice?
The honest answer is that the gap between the promise of arbitration (flexible, efficient, commercially responsive) and its reality in many proceedings remains wider than it should be. And I think there is a more fundamental point that is worth making before we even get to the mechanics of how proceedings are conducted.
Arbitration is in my experience generally more expensive and more time-consuming than litigation before the Singapore courts. The Singapore courts are exceptionally well-run, procedurally sophisticated, and served by a judiciary of the highest calibre. For many disputes, particularly those between parties who are both present in Singapore, where enforcement is not a significant concern, and where the subject matter does not call for specialist technical expertise or confidentiality – domestic litigation is likely to be faster, cheaper, and no less effective than arbitration.
The difficulty is that parties and their advisers often reach for an arbitration clause at the contract drafting stage almost reflexively, because it is familiar, because it is what the precedent says, or because it seems to be what everyone else is doing. That is the wrong approach. The dispute resolution clause is one of the most consequential provisions in any commercial agreement, and it deserves the same level of considered attention as the substantive commercial terms. Parties should ask themselves at the outset: what kinds of disputes are we likely to have under this contract? Do we need the enforceability advantages that arbitration offers under the New York Convention? Is confidentiality important? Are we likely to need a specialist tribunal? Is there a cross-border element that makes the neutrality of an arbitral seat valuable? If the answer to those questions is no, arbitration may not be the right choice and choosing it by default, rather than by design, can mean that parties find themselves locked into a process that is slower and more costly than the alternative they never seriously considered.
On the question of where proceedings fall short once they are underway, there is a tendency in larger arbitrations to treat every issue as deserving of equal attention – lengthy memorials, extensive witness statements, voluminous expert reports – when the reality is that most cases turn on a small number of genuinely contested issues. Tribunals and counsel alike need to be more willing to identify those issues early and concentrate resources accordingly.
Q: How do you approach case management to ensure proceedings remain efficient and cost-effective?
My approach starts at the beginning of a matter. One of the most important conversations you can have with a client is an early and frank discussion about what the case is really about – what the key issues are and what a proportionate level of resource commitment looks like. Clients are best served by advisers who are willing to have that conversation rather than simply responding to every development reactively.
In terms of procedural management, I would emphasise early issue identification – working with the tribunal to narrow the genuine areas of dispute as quickly as possible and structuring the proceedings around those issues. I am also an advocate for bifurcation where appropriate. In matters where liability and quantum are genuinely separable, resolving the liability question first can save significant costs, particularly where the quantum issues are complex and expensive to address.
I also pay attention to the use of expert evidence. Expert reports are one of the largest cost drivers in international arbitration, and ensuring that experts are properly instructed, that their reports are focused on the right questions, and that the expert evidence phase is managed efficiently, makes a material difference to the overall cost and duration of proceedings.
Q: There is often a tension between thoroughness and efficiency in arbitration. How do you strike that balance?
This is perhaps the central challenge of the practice, and I do not think there is a formulaic answer. The balance is necessarily case-specific and depends on what is genuinely at stake.
What I try to avoid is what I would call defensive thoroughness; the instinct to address every conceivable point exhaustively, not because it genuinely assists the client’s case, but because it feels safer to do so. That instinct tends to obscure the strong points of a case rather than strengthen it.
The discipline I apply is to always ask whether a piece of work, be it a submission, a witness statement or a document request, is moving the needle on the issues that will determine the outcome. If the honest answer is no, or only marginally, then the resources devoted to it need to be reconsidered. That requires a degree of confidence and judgment, and sometimes it means having conversations with clients about where to draw the line. But I think that discipline is ultimately what clients pay for.
Q: Looking ahead, what is one change you would like to see in arbitration practice that would make the biggest difference to users?
Early case management. The best arbitrations I have been involved in are those where the tribunal has engaged meaningfully with the parties at the outset to identify the real issues, challenge assumptions about what evidence is necessary, and set a procedural framework that is genuinely tailored to the case rather than imported wholesale from a previous arbitration. That kind of active case management makes an enormous difference to both efficiency and cost.
The challenge is that it requires tribunals who are willing to exercise that judgment firmly but diplomatically, particularly where parties or their counsel are resistant to the process being shaped in ways that do not suit their preferred approach. That is a skill, and I think the profession needs to do more to develop it and to set expectations that this kind of engagement is not an intrusion on party autonomy but a legitimate and necessary part of the tribunal’s function.
Q: If you could give one piece of practical advice to younger arbitration practitioners, what would it be?
Invest in your relationships with colleagues, with opposing counsel, with practitioners in other jurisdictions and from different legal traditions. International arbitration is at its heart a small world, and the quality of the relationships you build early in your career may shape the opportunities that come to you throughout it.
But I would add something to that, because I think the relational dimension of the practice is sometimes spoken about in a way that sounds more transactional than I intend. What I mean by investing in relationships is genuinely engaging with the people around you. Being curious about how they think, how they approach problems, what their experience has been. Some of the most formative moments in my own development as a practitioner have come not from formal training but from working closely with counsel and watching how they handle a cross-examination, structure an argument, or navigate a fraught procedural dispute.
The other thing I would say is to seek out the hard cases early if you can. It is the complex, uncertain, multi-jurisdictional cases that develop you fastest.
From left to right:
- Hari Raya Celebration
- Spending time outdoors
- Father, Son & Dim Sum Time!
- Street Fighter’s Guile & Sagat
