I am an independent arbitrator with 28 years’ experience in dispute resolution, focusing on complex commercial matters, particularly post-M&A, construction (onshore and offshore) and energy disputes.

I have served as sole arbitrator, co-arbitrator and tribunal chair in both ad hoc and institutional proceedings, including cases under SCC, DIA, LCIA and FAI rules.

I am a Solicitor of England and Wales and an Advocate in Norway, where I hold rights of audience before the Supreme Court following judicial assessment. This dual qualification enables me to work comfortably across both common and civil law.

Before becoming a full-time arbitrator, I headed the international arbitration practice and led the construction law practice at leading Norwegian law firms. In that capacity, I acted as counsel in numerous international arbitrations, including proceedings under the ICC, SCC, DIA, ICDR and NOMA rules, investment treaty arbitration under ICSID, and ad hoc arbitrations under the Norwegian Arbitration Act and the UNCITRAL Rules.

I am a board member of the SCC Arbitration Institute in Stockholm, where I am closely involved in institutional decision-making, including the appointment of arbitrators, challenges and other procedural matters. This direct insight into the standards expected of tribunals ensures that my own practice remains aligned with international best practices.

Approach

I approach every mandate with equal diligence, ensuring that the value or complexity of a dispute never affects the quality of my work or the attention a matter receives. I seek to manage cases collaboratively and efficiently.

I take particular care in the preparation and drafting of awards, emphasizing clarity, substantive reasoning and enforceability.

Through my experience as arbitrator and counsel in cross-border disputes involving parties from the Nordics, the UK and continental Europe, the United States and Asia-Pacific, I have developed a practical understanding of how legal arguments, procedural expectations and advocacy styles may differ across regions and legal systems. This insight ensures a neutral and predictable process where all parties can be confident that their arguments are genuinely understood, regardless of their legal background.