P&K Interview: Introducing Cameron Sim

We were pleased to welcome Cameron Sim to the Peter & Kim partnership in May 2025. In this interview we learn a bit more about Cameron, his experience and expertise and why he joined the firm.

Having just recently joined Peter & Kim, what do you think sets the firm apart in the market?

International arbitration has become a highly specialised area across many key industry sectors. It is now well-established as the dispute resolution method of choice in cross-border matters.

As a single focus firm dedicated to international arbitration, Peter & Kim offers a depth of knowledge that places clients in the best possible position when it comes to navigating the complexities of cross-border disputes. These are run-of-the-mill for the entire team at Peter & Kim, whose combined experience is unparalleled.

In the three months since I have joined, I have worked closely with the teams across all of the firm’s six offices. This has included appearing alongside the Geneva and Zurich teams at an arbitration hearing in London, opening the firm’s new office in Perth, and working from Sydney and Singapore, with forthcoming travels to Seoul. Peter & Kim has a lot of momentum, and it is an exciting time to have joined the firm.

You are truly a global disputes lawyer having worked across both Europe and the Asia Pacific region. How do you think the perspective you have gained helps in dispute resolution?

I have been fortunate in my career to act in disputes across all continents. After my studies in Australia, my career began at a UK-headquartered firm in London. Shifting early in my career to a US-headquartered firm opened my eyes to a very different style of advocacy.   Whilst in London, I also had the opportunity to spend a year clerking at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which helped me to understand law from the perspective of decision-makers. Following my London years, I spent several years based in Hong Kong, which again gave me a very different perspective on dispute resolution, before I returned to Australia earlier this year.

A global perspective is especially beneficial in international arbitration. The best arbitration lawyers are agile and flexible. They are confident acting in disputes subject to various governing laws and legal traditions. This helps them to assess their client’s case prospects, and better understand both their client’s perspective, and that of the opposing side. This assists to pre-empt the opposing party’s next move, and where possible, to identify whether and when a dispute might be settled before an arbitration has run its full course.

Over the years, I have acted for clients across Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. The disputes themselves have been subject to many different governing laws and the arbitrations have been seated in different jurisdictions. Being deep in the dispute trenches alongside clients enables the forging of close relationships. In turn, this improves understanding of different cultural perspectives. To me, this is the most important perspective that can be gained working on cross-border disputes.

What are the key legal strategies for mitigating risk in cross-border private equity transactions?

The structuring of private equity funds and the manner in which they acquire investments often involves a multitude of agreements. When disputes arise, if it transpires that the dispute resolution provisions across the suite of fund documents are incompatible, that can spell trouble. Instead of a single proceeding in which all related disputes are resolved, parties may be faced with fragmented dispute resolution, with multiple separate arbitrations and court litigation. This increases significantly the time and cost involved in resolving disputes.

As with all sectors, the key strategy to mitigate risk in cross-border private equity transactions is to ensure the contractual framework is sound and protects a party’s interests. During contractual negotiations, it is important to pre-empt what disputes might arise and to ensure the dispute resolution provisions in the suite of related documents will protect rights and interests.

How can companies best position themselves contractually to benefit from international arbitration?

When we talk about international arbitration, we are referring to two key types: commercial arbitration, and investment treaty arbitration.

Commercial arbitration is an alternative to court litigation for resolution of a dispute. To benefit from commercial arbitration, ordinarily parties will include an arbitration agreement in their contracts (although it is possible, where all parties agree, to submit to arbitration after a dispute has arisen, even where the contract does not contain an arbitration agreement).

The drafting of arbitration agreements is highly technical. Too often, I see boilerplate arbitration agreements come across my desk after a dispute has arisen and it transpires the agreement was not fit for purpose. This can increase, often very significantly, the time and costs involved in resolving a dispute. Failing to negotiate an arbitration agreement, or simply including a boilerplate without further reflection, is leaving money on the negotiating table. Spending even minimal time negotiating and reviewing the arbitration agreement can make all the difference – including as to the case outcome – in the event a dispute arises down the track.

As for investment treaty arbitration, this is available to foreign investors to invoke against host states of their investment to resolve disputes about investment protection under international law. Foreign investors often can structure their investments to ensure they have access to these protections.

As with arbitration agreements, treaty structuring is a highly technical exercise which requires expertise. The corporate structure needs to be in place before a dispute with the host state has arisen or is foreseeable. Ideally, the corporate structure will be finalised at the time the investment is made, although it is normally possible to restructure subsequently to maintain or gain access to treaty protections.

How is the global arbitration landscape evolving, and what should in-house counsel watch out for?

I never cease to be amazed at the constantly evolving landscape in international arbitration. There are frequent variations to the arbitration rules of leading arbitral institutions. There are also frequent updates to the arbitration laws of leading arbitration jurisdictions. My sense is the competition inherent in the international arbitration market – with many institutions and jurisdictions vying for a greater market share – means these frequent updates will always be the norm.

In-house counsel should ensure they are aware of how these ongoing developments impact the attractiveness of arbitration rules or seats of arbitration for their company’s arbitration agreements. Certain developments may be beneficial for some industry sectors, and detrimental for others. There is no one-size-fit-all approach for international arbitration. A fresh assessment of the best system on offer for a particular company, for a particular transaction, should always be conducted.

When disputes arise, it is important to have access to team well-versed in international arbitration. As this has become a highly specialised area, it may be that a company’s usual firm engaged for disputes may not be well-placed to conduct the arbitration. Having a specialist arbitration firm on side, acting either as sole counsel or co-counsel, is likely to lead to better results.