Arbitration from the Corporate Perspective

A conversation with Huie (Sandy) Huang

We cover the subject of arbitration every month in the ICC Netherlands newsletter. Until now, we have never interviewed an in-house lawyer with experience of arbitration from the corporate standpoint. Aiming to broaden our knowledge, we spoke to Huie Huang, who has worked on several arbitration cases in recent years and is now Compliance Data Counsel at TIP Group. Having studied law in the Netherlands and China and worked in Dubai, Shenzhen, Rome and now Amsterdam as an in-house lawyer dealing with international contracts and disputes, Huie brings a global perspective to dispute resolution. In this interview, she shares what arbitration looks like from the corporate side and offers practical advice for in-house counsel navigating international disputes.

What does arbitration look like from your position of in-house counsel?

Arbitration serves as a strategy to manage disputes while protecting the commercial interests of the company. Arbitration offers practical advantages: neutrality, procedural flexibility, enforceability and confidentiality are all reasons why a company would choose arbitration. The frequency of arbitration cases depends on the company’s industry and risk preference, but also the geography and the nature of the contract.

So this is the connection with the geographical location of the parties?

Indeed. In my experience working with large transaction cross-border contracts – in the Middle East or Africa, for example – where the counterparty is located in a different jurisdiction, we would prefer to use arbitration rather than litigation to resolve a dispute.

Do all contracts have a dispute resolution clause?

A standard contract template should normally include a dispute resolution clause; this could be litigation or arbitration. The company may have a different preference, but all this is included in the dispute resolution clause.

And what makes a good dispute resolution clause?

It’s really important to draft it in a very effective and clear way. That’s because the dispute might not happen until years later; maybe 10 years later for contracts in, for example, the telecom or construction industry. If the clause is poorly drafted, the potential consequences can be costly. Consent is the cornerstone of arbitration; the parties’ intention to resolve disputes through arbitration must be clearly expressed in the contract. You also need to identify the arbitration institution and the seat of arbitration. You can, of course, use a template provided by the arbitration institution. The ICC has this. You can customise the template for your own purposes.

Is the ICC the most commonly used arbitration institution?

I would say it’s one of the most commonly used institutions. Because of its well-developed arbitration rules and clear procedure structure, the ICC is a very good choice for an arbitration institution. In terms of the scrutiny of the decision, the ICC definitely has advantages compared to some other institutions. The first arbitration case I handled was an ICC arbitration.

Can a company take on an arbitration case without an arbitration institution?

It is an option, but in practice, I see that companies prefer to use an arbitration institution because it provides the structured framework and administrative support that makes the process more efficient.

What factors come into play when a company has to select an arbitrator?

Selecting the arbitrator is one of the most challenging and painful points for in-house counsel when dealing with an arbitration case. It’s not like reaching out to a law firm; arbitrators are normally independent. When we select arbitrators, we first consider neutrality and expertise. And because arbitration cases often involve technical issues, it is important that arbitrators have not only strong legal experience but also knowledge of the relevant industry. From a corporate perspective, an arbitrator must be able to understand the technical aspects of the dispute, identify liability and assess damages. An arbitrator who combines strong legal expertise with a clear understanding of commercial reality is therefore highly valued.

Why can choosing an arbitrator be painful?

Because the arbitrator is really the key factor in the arbitration procedure – they will give the final word. So if you choose the wrong person, it can ruin the case and affect the final result.

What role does the seat of arbitration play, and what do companies look for when choosing one?

It much depends on a company’s internal policy and its risk considerations. In some cases, companies choose a seat that is geographically close. If the arbitration takes place far away, travel and accommodation costs can become significant. Another key factor is neutrality. When parties come from different jurisdictions, they often prefer an arbitration-friendly country.

What about the Netherlands as a seat of arbitration?

The Netherlands is a strong option. Many international companies have their European or global headquarters here, which creates a large number of commercial relationships. The country also benefits from experienced arbitration practitioners, particularly in The Hague. More broadly, companies consider whether the seat offers a reliable legal framework, accessible facilities, and a well-known legal system where qualified lawyers and arbitration professionals are readily available.

What advice would you give to in-house counsel handling their first arbitration case?

My first message is simple: don’t panic. Arbitration is different from court litigation, and it takes time to become familiar with the process. One of the most important steps is to assemble the right team early. This includes not only external counsel but sometimes technical experts as well. At the same time, strong internal coordination is essential. In-house lawyers need support from management, colleagues who know the project well, and sometimes employees who may act as witnesses or experts during the proceedings.

Another point that is often underestimated is the workload; arbitration requires significant internal coordination, and gathering the necessary materials can be a major task for in-house counsel. Managing expectations is also crucial; it is important to explain the process clearly to management and ensure they understand the time and resources required. At the same time, arbitration offers some flexibility. There is always the possibility of settlement during the proceedings, which can help reduce time and costs.

Arbitration is demanding but very interesting, combining legal reasoning with commercial insight – I feel very privileged to be working as in-house counsel.