Cavinder Bull SC

Drew & Napier

Singapore www.drewnapier.com

cavinder.bull@drewnapier.com Tel: +65 6531 2416

Biography

Cavinder has over 25 years of experience in international arbitration acting as counsel in both commercial and investor-state cases, and as arbitrator in ICSID, PCA, ICC, SIAC and LCIA arbitrations. Cavinder is also vicepresident of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, a governing board member of ICCA, vice-president of the Asia-Pacific Regional Arbitration Group, and is on the World Bank Sanctions Board. Cavinder studied law at Oxford University and Harvard Law School. He is called to the Bar in Singapore, New York and England.

What do you enjoy most about working in international arbitration?

The work is incredibly diverse and interesting. One gets to be involved in cases from all over the world. One also gets to interact with a range of lawyers as co-counsel or as opposing counsel, as well as to appear before arbitrators for many different legal systems and traditions. This makes for an interesting mix that never ceases to engage.

To what extent has the international arbitration community met the challenge of improving diversity in recent years?

I think the international arbitration community has done reasonably well in trying to improve diversity. Much more remains to be done, of course. In the area of gender diversity, I think there is now a very deliberate push within the community as a whole to balance up. We see more women in leadership positions in arbitral institutions and in arbitrator appointments, gender diversity is almost always part of the conversation. In numerous cases I have been involved in, it has been the crucial factor in deciding on the chair of a tribunal from a shortlist. However, we have achieved much less in the area of geographical diversity. We need to do more to ensure that different regions of the world are meaningfully represented in the work of the international arbitration community.

Do you see a growing interest in clients preferring arbitration over litigation?

Absolutely. I find clients to be more and more knowledgeable about international arbitration, its benefits, and are able to differentiate between arbitration and litigation in a fairly sophisticated manner. They know how to choose horses for courses and this has allowed arbitration to play a more significant role in dispute resolution in commercial contexts.

Arbitrator independence and disclosure is a hot topic, with concerns that standards are opaque and restrictive. Do you agree?

I understand the very real concern that users have with arbitrator independence. It is absolutely crucial that this concern is addressed or it will affect the confidence that users have in the entire arbitral process. However, I don’t think the standards are that opaque. There is more than sufficient law and guidance such that arbitrators know what they should do and by and large I find that arbitrators tend to err on the side of disclosure to ensure that parties have confidence in the arbitral panel that is appointed. While there are instances where this has not been done, there is no doubt that the arbitration community takes the issue very seriously.

To what extent does the shift towards virtual arbitration influence counsel when it comes to selecting the geography of their arbitrator’s seat?

I don’t think the shift towards virtual arbitration really influences the selection of arbitrators that much. The geographic location of an arbitrator may be an indication of how much she or he knows about a particular commercial context. Other than that, it doesn’t really matter. What’s more

Has the arbitral discretion been limited by due process?

Only to the extent that it is necessary. Due process is vital to maintaining the credibility of the international arbitration system. But experienced arbitrators are well able to provide due process to parties without losing the flexibility that is one of the hallmarks of arbitration.

Should tribunals be more bullish about corruption defences and examining evidence for corruption in proceedings?

I think so. Certainly in investor-state cases, this is a fundamental issue. It does not help the reputation of international arbitration for arbitrators to ignore evidence of corruption. Not only is such evidence often legally relevant but its consideration is also in line with expectations of the users and those affected by the arbitral decisions.

You’ve enjoyed a very distinguished career so far. What would you like to achieve that you have not yet accomplished?

I’m just happy to take each case as it comes, and to contribute in some small way to resolving disputes.

Peers and clients say: “He is without doubt one of the best lawyers I have worked with globally” “His clarity of thought is unparalleled and he is able to grasp extremely complex nuances in no time at all” “Cavinder’s advocacy is excellent” “He is completely accessible, reliable and executes superbly”