At the eighth edition of Asia ADR Week 2026, organised by the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), a session titled “The Art of Persuasion: Oral Advocacy in International Arbitration” examined the practical choices that shape effective advocacy before arbitral tribunals. Held on 12 October 2026 at the AIAC Auditorium in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the session brought together practitioners with experience in commercial disputes, international arbitration and arbitral decision-making.
Moderated by Janice Ooi, Partner at Christopher & Lee Ong, the discussion featured:
-
Adam Lee, Partner at Christopher & Lee Ong;
-
Siva Kumar Kanagasabai, Head of Dispute Resolution and Senior Partner at Halim Hong & Quek; and
-
Cheng Zhong, Managing Partner at Commerce & Finance Law Offices, who joined virtually.
The discussion examined how counsel should structure opening submissions, develop a coherent case theory, address unfavourable evidence, respond to tribunal questions, conduct cross-examination and manage limited hearing time. The panellists emphasised that persuasive advocacy depends not merely on eloquence, but on preparation, credibility, adaptability and the ability to help the tribunal understand the case.
Opening submissions: Establish the direction of the case
Opening submissions were discussed as an opportunity to establish the tribunal’s understanding of the dispute and provide a clear framework for deciding it. Siva Kumar Kanagasabai distinguished between advocacy in court and in arbitration. Drawing on his experience, he observed that court proceedings may involve judges handling numerous cases, whereas arbitrators often have greater time to examine the parties’ arguments and evidence.
[In picture from left to right: Janice Ooi, Adam Lee and Siva Kumar Kanagasabai]
He also distinguished between common law proceedings, in which oral openings may have a more prominent role, and memorial-style proceedings, where the tribunal may already have examined extensive written submissions, documents and witness statements before the hearing. In the latter setting, the opening should not merely repeat the record. It should explain the dispute’s central issue and identify what the tribunal must decide.
Siva Kumar Kanagasabai identified three objectives for an effective opening: capture the tribunal’s attention, establish credibility and provide a roadmap to the outcome sought. Counsel should identify two or three key issues, explain how the evidence will address them and indicate how those issues lead to the relief requested. Where a significant weakness is apparent, counsel may address it briefly rather than leave the tribunal to encounter it without explanation.
He cautioned against lengthy introductions, unnecessary procedural history and exaggerated descriptions of the strength of a case. An opening that portrays a disputed proposition as indisputable risks damaging counsel’s credibility if the evidence later reveals complications. He cautioned counsel against overstating their case.
Adam Lee added that counsel should address weaknesses directly, but briefly in the opening, so that the opposing party does not appear to be the first to identify them. This is particularly important where a damaging point is likely to arise during the hearing.
The panellists also considered the position of respondents who must answer an opponent’s opening. Adam Lee favoured addressing the opposing case at the outset before moving to the respondent’s own arguments. Siva Kumar Kanagasabai suggested leading with the respondent’s strongest points and addressing the weakness thereafter. Cheng Zhong similarly advised counsel to establish their own case before responding to the claimant’s principal arguments.
While their approaches differed in sequencing, all three emphasised maintaining control of the narrative without ignoring points that the tribunal is likely to consider important.
Building a coherent case theory
The discussion then turned to the relationship between a simple case theory and the need to present the complete factual picture. Adam Lee observed that a case theory cannot be merely a list of arguments favourable to a party. It must account for weaknesses, adverse documents, the available evidence and the applicable law.
He suggested testing the theory against four considerations: whether it is simple enough to explain clearly; whether it remains consistent with the evidence as a whole, including material adverse to the client; whether it is fair and commercially intelligible; and whether it is capable of being adopted by the tribunal in its award.
The final consideration was described as making the case theory “award-ready”. The objective is to present the reasoning in a form that the tribunal can follow and, where justified, use when explaining its decision.
Cheng Zhong supported leading with the central conclusion and its strongest supporting point. In his view, doing so need not undermine the overall narrative, provided that the argument emerges naturally from the factual and commercial context. The danger arises when extensive background material obscures the main issue or leaves the tribunal without a clear thread through the submissions.
A strong opening point therefore need not displace the wider factual narrative. Rather, the supporting facts and legal propositions should reinforce the central theory instead of competing with it for attention.
Unfavourable evidence and strategic concessions
Addressing difficult facts was a major part of the discussion. Siva Kumar Kanagasabai observed that it is unusual for either party to have a perfect case. Since tribunals are likely to identify obvious weaknesses, counsel should decide before the hearing how to address damaging evidence rather than hope it will go unnoticed.
He identified several ways of dealing with unfavourable material. Counsel may explain that the evidence is not material to the decisive issue, clarify that it has been taken out of context or place it alongside other evidence that affects its significance. The response should depend on what the evidence actually establishes.
He cautioned against making concessions merely to appear reasonable. Counsel’s responsibility to act in the client’s interests remains paramount, and authority should be obtained before conceding an important matter. Where a concession is appropriate, its scope must be precisely defined. Conceding that an action occurred late, for example, should not inadvertently become a concession that it constituted a breach.
Siva Kumar Kanagasabai also drew attention to the potential consequences of concessions recorded in hearing transcripts, particularly if the award is subsequently challenged. Precision matters both to the immediate presentation of the case and to the record of what counsel has accepted.
Cheng Zhong approached the issue through the distinction between favourable presentation and misrepresentation. Counsel may place adverse evidence in its proper context, explain its limited relevance or identify its weaknesses. However, they should not misrepresent either the existence or substance of evidence, or attribute to it a probative value it does not possess.
He advised that strategic concessions should have a clear purpose, such as narrowing the issues, and should define their scope. Properly framed concessions can demonstrate reasonableness; ambiguous or unqualified ones may be understood as the abandonment of a substantive position.
The discussion also considered opponents who scrutinise every detail or present evidence out of context. Adam Lee advised counsel to anticipate such challenges by knowing the record thoroughly and preparing a coherent case theory. Where counsel tells the tribunal that a point will be addressed later, the undertaking must be tracked and fulfilled. He suggested delegating this task to junior team members where appropriate.
Reading tribunal questions and responding directly
The panellists treated questions from the tribunal as opportunities to understand and address the concerns that may affect the decision. Adam Lee identified four signals counsel should learn to distinguish.
Clarifying questions generally indicate that the tribunal needs a missing detail or a better explanation. Counsel should identify the gap and supply the information needed to complete the tribunal’s understanding.
Testing questions challenge a proposition or suggest that the tribunal may hold a provisional view against counsel’s argument. These require a direct response to the point being tested, rather than a repetition of the broader submission.
What Adam Lee described as “lifeline questions” may give counsel an opportunity to clarify the position the tribunal thinks the party is advancing. Counsel should determine whether the tribunal’s formulation accurately reflects the argument and correct it where necessary.
Finally, tribunal members turning pages, looking at one another or appearing disengaged may signal that counsel has lost their attention. In such circumstances, Adam Lee advised changing approach and, where possible, engaging the tribunal in a more direct dialogue.
Cheng Zhong added that the substance and pattern of questions can help counsel distinguish a request for clarification from a deeper disagreement. A question confined to a particular factual or procedural detail may require a narrow answer. Repeated questions about the same point, or questions probing the assumptions underlying the case theory, may indicate a more fundamental concern.
He advised counsel to answer directly before briefly addressing the underlying concern. He also recommended holding firm on core questions of liability and primary relief, while being prepared to concede procedural points or minor factual issues where appropriate. If the tribunal repeatedly expresses difficulty with a particular argument, counsel should be willing to adjust the emphasis of the presentation.
Siva Kumar Kanagasabai underscored the importance of these exchanges because the scope for challenging an arbitral award is limited. Tribunal intervention allows counsel to identify misunderstandings about facts or law before the award is issued. Counsel must therefore listen carefully and decide whether to defend, qualify or abandon a proposition, rather than treat every question as an adversarial contest.
Cross-examination: Define the objective and know when to stop
On cross-examination, Adam Lee advised counsel to identify in advance the evidence they intend to elicit. After obtaining the answer sought, counsel should pause before asking another question. Continuing to press a witness may give them an opportunity to explain or qualify testimony that has already assisted the case.
He warned against excessive use of documents to establish a point that the witness has already accepted. If the documentary record is clear and the answer has been obtained, further questioning may add little and may even reopen the issue.
Siva Kumar Kanagasabai identified three principal objectives of cross-examination: eliciting evidence favourable to the client, undermining evidence damaging to the client’s case and, where appropriate, testing a witness’s credibility. He favoured preparing sequences of closed-ended questions directed towards a defined objective. Open-ended questioning may nevertheless have a role where counsel needs to investigate an evidentiary position and establish what can be elicited from the witness.
Adam Lee also cautioned against over-accusing or badgering witnesses. In international arbitration, tribunal members may come from different legal and cultural traditions and may not respond favourably to aggressive questioning. Differences in language may also affect how accusations are understood.
Cheng Zhong noted that cross-examination is not used in the same way in every Chinese domestic arbitration and did not offer a broader assessment of the technique from his own practice. His qualification underscored the need to recognise procedural differences rather than assume that one approach translates unchanged across jurisdictions.
Time management: Prioritise instead of speaking faster
The panel examined the effect of time limits, including the use of a chess clock to allocate time between parties. Adam Lee advised counsel to prepare different versions of oral submissions, including a short version that could be delivered in approximately two minutes if the available time was unexpectedly reduced.
Where time runs short, counsel should identify the central propositions and refer the tribunal to the relevant portions of written submissions or witness statements where appropriate, rather than attempt to reproduce every argument.
Cheng Zhong observed that strict time limits can improve oral advocacy by compelling counsel to prioritise and giving both parties an equal opportunity to be heard. He recommended reducing extended factual background and procedural history before cutting the strongest legal arguments or the principal factual pillars of the case.
He stressed that the appropriate response to reduced time is not to speak faster, but to omit less critical material and deliver the essential points clearly.
The panellists’ discussion therefore treated time management as a matter of preparation and structure. Counsel should establish the hierarchy of arguments before the hearing, allowing the most important points to remain intelligible even when the allotted time changes.
Tone, pace and clarity in multilingual tribunals
The discussion also examined how delivery affects persuasion when tribunal members do not share the same first language. Cheng Zhong described tone, pace and pauses as underappreciated aspects of advocacy, particularly in multilingual proceedings.
He advised speaking slowly and deliberately rather than prioritising speed or fluency. Pauses after important points can help tribunal members process and retain the argument, while rapid delivery risks misunderstanding and may give an impression of nervousness or overstatement. An aggressive tone, he added, does not necessarily strengthen an argument or enhance counsel’s credibility.
Siva Kumar Kanagasabai approached delivery from the perspective of an arbitrator. The central requirement, he said, is that the tribunal understands the proposition being advanced. If counsel presents arguments in a confused or excessively rapid manner, an important point may be missed. Counsel should therefore remain attentive to the tribunal’s response and be prepared to explain the point again in a clearer form.
The emphasis was on effective communication rather than performance. Linguistic fluency alone cannot compensate for an argument that is difficult to follow.
Closing submissions: Connect the evidence to the award sought
Turning to closing submissions, Adam Lee observed that counsel must decide what belongs in the oral closing and what is better left to written submissions. Where an oral closing is permitted, it should return to the overall case and explain, concisely, why the requested award should follow. Reproducing every detail risks obscuring the conclusion counsel wants the tribunal to reach.
Siva Kumar Kanagasabai similarly described oral closing as the opportunity to present the big picture after the tribunal has heard the evidence. Given the volume of documents and written submissions that may form part of an arbitration record, counsel should identify the decisive evidence and direct the tribunal to the relevant material.
This may involve taking the tribunal to a critical document, displaying a relevant extract or highlighting an admission in the hearing transcript. Counsel should then connect the evidence to the factual conclusions sought, apply those conclusions to the relevant legal test and explain why the requested relief follows.
The objective is to provide a clear route from the record to the decision. As Siva Kumar Kanagasabai explained, a good closing should make it easier for the arbitrator to write the award in the party’s favour where the case supports that result.
“Advocacy is not a debate; it is a dialogue”
In their concluding observations, the panellists returned to the importance of listening, credibility and professional conduct.
Adam Lee advised counsel to listen more than they speak, observing that tribunal questions can guide counsel towards the issues that need to be addressed. He also urged courtesy towards opposing counsel, noting that the arbitration community in the region is relatively small and that today’s opposing counsel may become tomorrow’s arbitrator.
Siva Kumar Kanagasabai expressed the underlying principle: “Advocacy is not a debate; it is a dialogue.” He said, counsel are there to assist the tribunal in reaching its decision, not to defend the client’s case at all costs.
Cheng Zhong concluded that language fluency should not be confused with professional competence. What matters is a sound grasp of legal reasoning, an understanding of the commercial context and the ability to work across different legal traditions. Counsel should lead with the core points, remain measured in their positions and recognise that credibility matters more than eloquence.
Taken together, the discussion presented oral advocacy as a disciplined exercise in guiding the tribunal through a case. Strong advocacy requires a clear theory, careful handling of adverse evidence, purposeful questioning, responsiveness to the tribunal and the judgment to know when to advance an argument, qualify it or move on. Its effectiveness lies not in the volume of words spoken, but in whether the tribunal can understand the case and follow the reasoning towards the outcome sought.
SCC Times is the official media partner for AIAC Asia ADR Week 2026. Read more reports from the week.
