Simon Chapman

Simon Chapman

Simon is an international arbitration specialist focusing on cross-border disputes in Asia. Simon leads the disputes practice in Greater China and focuses on international arbitration and arbitration-related litigation.  A specialist advocate, he appears regularly as lead counsel before tribunals in the world's foremost arbitration centres, including Hong Kong, Singapore and London. 

Having spent a number of years based in London and Paris, Simon relocated to Asia in 2011 and has acted on some of the largest and most complex cases in the region. 

Simon's practice covers investment treaty and commercial arbitration under all of the major arbitral rules, including ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, LCIA, ICSID and UNCITRAL.  He has particular expertise in complex and high-value disputes, notably claims in fraud and breach of warranty, as well as post-M&A, joint venture and shareholder disputes.  He has acted for governments, state-owned entities, sovereign wealth funds and corporations across a range of industries, including the energy, private equity, finance, hospitality and TMT sectors.  

Simon is dual-qualified in Hong Kong and England and Wales, with higher rights of audience in both jurisdictions. 

Simon is ranked as a leading individual in all of the key directories and is recommended as a global leader in international arbitration by Who's Who Legal.  In addition to his work as counsel, Simon also sits as arbitrator and has experience as presiding arbitrator, co-arbitrator and sole arbitrator across a range of institutional and ad hoc cases.




Contact Simon Chapman

Website: https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/our-people/simon-chapman-qc

Articles and Video:

Hong Kong Court Refuses to Issue 'Interim-Interim' Injunction to Restrain Arbitrator (11/09/20)
Hong Kong’s District Court refused to grant an injunction to restrain an arbitrator from acting in an arbitration, on the grounds that there was already another identical application before the court scheduled for hearing and that there was no urgency for granting an “interim-interim” injunction.