OiA x Nusa: Rachel Low & Lim Wen Juin
Welcome to a special Overheard in Asia & Nusa Chambers Spotlight feature!
In OIA 66, we mentioned the setting aside of a USD 43 million UNCITRAL award awarded to US hedge fund Mason Capital over South Korea’s interference in the Samsung merger.
Today, we have the immense pleasure of hearing directly from Rachel Low & Lim Wen Juin (featured in a previous Spotlight here) of Nusa Chambers, who represented Mason Capital before the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC). Their insights offer a rare behind-the-scenes look at one of the most closely-watched investment treaty enforcement proceedings of recent years.
To those new to the name, Nusa Chambers is Asia’s first virtual chambers. It is a collective of independent practitioners dedicated to making excellent dispute resolution services accessible for clients through technology and innovation.
Rachel Low has over ten years of experience in complex litigation and international arbitration disputes. She frequently collaborates with local and international law firms and counsels on disputes in Singapore and abroad, including investor-state arbitrations.
Lim Wen Juin is an independent disputes lawyer with experience in investor-State and commercial arbitrations. Prior to entering practice, he worked in the Singapore judiciary in both civil and criminal matters. In addition to his counsel work, he also acts as secretary to arbitral tribunals.
What do you think this outcome reveals about the role of independent counsel in high-stakes disputes?
The takeaway here is that regardless of the outcome, independent counsel can be a great option for international law firms looking to instruct Singapore counsel in high-stakes disputes. Rather than engaging a full-service law firm with a large team of partners and associates, international firms that often already have a team in place can opt to work with one or two independent counsels in Singapore. This allows for a more cost-efficient and streamlined collaboration, without compromising on the quality of the legal work.
What’s one advocacy lesson you both learned from this case?
We learnt a great deal from working with a stellar team comprising Latham & Watkins, led by Ms Sophie Lamb KC, and our lead counsel Mr Matthew Gearing KC.
Perhaps the most meaningful advocacy lesson - the one that really stood out in this case - was that advocacy can be a truly collaborative exercise. There was a deliberate effort to schedule regular opportunities for the team to sit down together (often virtually) to discuss the strategy and submissions for the case. This resulted in significant collaboration throughout, including in the preparation of the written and oral submissions, and being part of that collective effort was genuinely gratifying.
If we may be permitted one more advocacy takeaway, it would be the importance of being succinct.
From the very beginning, there was a conscious effort to keep the written submissions as concise as possible. A lot of thought went into deciding what truly needed to go into the written briefs, and what could be left for oral argument. That discipline wasn’t easy - especially given how much material there was to cover - but it was important to ensure that the key points weren’t buried in excessive detail. It’s definitely an approach we intend to carry forward in future matters.
What advice would you give to young lawyers interested in international arbitration and investment treaty law?
You don’t have to be at a big firm to get involved in international arbitration or investment treaty law. There are opportunities as independent counsel, but this will likely involve close coordination with other law firms and counsel, sometimes across multiple jurisdictions, so it is important to be adaptable, collaborative, and ready to work as part of a wider team.
This case was about more than just enforcing a USD 43 million investment treaty award. It showcases how the landscape of international disputes is evolving - toward leaner teams, deeper collaboration, and a commitment to clarity in argument.
As Rachel and Wen Juin shared, advocacy isn’t a solo performance. Neither do you need to be in Big Law to make a big impact.
As investment treaty arbitration continues to grow - and enforcement challenges become increasingly sophisticated - this case stands as a model of what strategic, modern advocacy can look like.