SIArb Annual Debate 2026
20 May 2026
✨ It’s a wrap for the SIArb Annual Debate 2026!✨
“This House Believes that Experts are Overpaid Storytellers” – this was the motion debated at this year’s SIArb Annual Debate.
Before a packed audience, our debaters questioned the role that experts play in arbitration, how they should best be appointed, and how they should be remunerated. Samuel Koh (Drew & Napier) served as moderator.
On behalf of the proposition, Valerie Neo (FTI Consulting) argued that storytelling was an essential part of an expert’s role on the basis that an expert needs not just to be right in their analysis, but to be convincingly right. Kyle Gabriel Peters (Sreenivasan Chambers) highlighted the deletrious effects of experts overstepping their scope of expertise (commonly referred to as competence creep) and the wasted costs that arise through the unnecessary appointment of experts (less commonly known by the term “feesmaxxing”).
Rachel Low (NUSA Chambers) argued for the opposition that experts were not storytellers but “storytesters”, being bound by the “strait jacket” of factual assumptions provided by counsel. On the issue of fees, she emphasised that in relation to the impact of their evidence to the quantum of damages awarded ultimately awarded, experts’ fees can frequently be insignificant. Armed with analogies and statistics, Hugo Petit (Hogan Lovells) tackled the criticism that experts can skew their opinions through the careful selection of data, arguing that this was a fundamental part of the adversarial process and not biased “storytelling”.
The debaters then faced a round of questions from the debate judges, Professor Gary F. Bell (NUS), Brian Zhu, FSIArb (Unipec) and Andrew Pullen (Fountain Court), the last of whom served as presiding judge for the evening. The debaters fended off questions on whether experts could nonetheless get “creative” with math, whether it was desirable to cure any lack of independence in witness evidence through having tribunal-appointed experts, and more.
Audience members were then also given the chance to pose questions to the debaters, and thereafter the debate was brought swiftly to a close – purely by coincidence, this was after a member of the audience suggested that a better question for debate may instead be if 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 were overpaid storytellers.
In the end, the opposition was victorious, and the overwhelming sentiment was that despite its imperfections, expert witnesses were there because arbitral tribunals need them. Speakers and guests were then treated to canapes and cocktails sponsored by FTI Consulting.
The SIArb Annual Debate was organised by the SIArb Young Practitioners Network (YPN). Stay tuned for more upcoming YPN activities in July 2026!
SIArb YPN Co-Chairs: Jia Yi Toh (杜佳怡) (Allen & Gledhill), Arias Lim Jie (K&L Gates)
SIArb YPN Volunteers: Aloysius Chang, FCIArb FSIArb (Kennedys), Julian Lim (Ashurst), Valerie Neo (FTI Consulting), Samuel Koh (Drew & Napier), Leonard Loh, TEP (Selvam LLC), Uma Sharma (Jones Day)
Supporting organisation: YSIAC
SIArb Annual Debate 2026
20 May 2026
✨ It’s a wrap for the SIArb Annual Debate 2026!✨
“This House Believes that Experts are Overpaid Storytellers” – this was the motion debated at this year’s SIArb Annual Debate.
Before a packed audience, our debaters questioned the role that experts play in arbitration, how they should best be appointed, and how they should be remunerated. Samuel Koh (Drew & Napier) served as moderator.
On behalf of the proposition, Valerie Neo (FTI Consulting) argued that storytelling was an essential part of an expert’s role on the basis that an expert needs not just to be right in their analysis, but to be convincingly right. Kyle Gabriel Peters (Sreenivasan Chambers) highlighted the deletrious effects of experts overstepping their scope of expertise (commonly referred to as competence creep) and the wasted costs that arise through the unnecessary appointment of experts (less commonly known by the term “feesmaxxing”).
Rachel Low (NUSA Chambers) argued for the opposition that experts were not storytellers but “storytesters”, being bound by the “strait jacket” of factual assumptions provided by counsel. On the issue of fees, she emphasised that in relation to the impact of their evidence to the quantum of damages awarded ultimately awarded, experts’ fees can frequently be insignificant. Armed with analogies and statistics, Hugo Petit (Hogan Lovells) tackled the criticism that experts can skew their opinions through the careful selection of data, arguing that this was a fundamental part of the adversarial process and not biased “storytelling”.
The debaters then faced a round of questions from the debate judges, Professor Gary F. Bell (NUS), Brian Zhu, FSIArb (Unipec) and Andrew Pullen (Fountain Court), the last of whom served as presiding judge for the evening. The debaters fended off questions on whether experts could nonetheless get “creative” with math, whether it was desirable to cure any lack of independence in witness evidence through having tribunal-appointed experts, and more.
Audience members were then also given the chance to pose questions to the debaters, and thereafter the debate was brought swiftly to a close – purely by coincidence, this was after a member of the audience suggested that a better question for debate may instead be if 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 were overpaid storytellers.
In the end, the opposition was victorious, and the overwhelming sentiment was that despite its imperfections, expert witnesses were there because arbitral tribunals need them. Speakers and guests were then treated to canapes and cocktails sponsored by FTI Consulting.
The SIArb Annual Debate was organised by the SIArb Young Practitioners Network (YPN). Stay tuned for more upcoming YPN activities in July 2026!
SIArb YPN Co-Chairs: Jia Yi Toh (杜佳怡) (Allen & Gledhill), Arias Lim Jie (K&L Gates)
SIArb YPN Volunteers: Aloysius Chang, FCIArb FSIArb (Kennedys), Julian Lim (Ashurst), Valerie Neo (FTI Consulting), Samuel Koh (Drew & Napier), Leonard Loh, TEP (Selvam LLC), Uma Sharma (Jones Day)
Supporting organisation: YSIAC