Samsung E&A (Thailand) Co., Ltd. and another v Linklaters LLP and others

Samsung E&A (Thailand) Co., Ltd and Saipem Singapore Pte. Ltd belong to a consortium that contracted with Thai Oil Public Company Limited in 2018 to build the Clean Fuel Project, a refinery upgrade in Thailand. In February 2025 they began a Singapore-seated SIAC arbitration against Thai Oil, claiming about US$1.7 billion; Thai Oil counterclaimed about US$3.88 billion. Linklaters acts for Thai Oil in that arbitration. From October 2023 Linklaters also acted for Petrofac Limited, parent of another consortium member, in its financial restructuring, in which Thai Oil was the largest creditor. Linklaters says it told Petrofac in March 2024 that it could not advise on Project disputes, set up information barriers between its two teams on 22 March 2024, and told Thai Oil in May 2024 that it could not advise on Petrofac's financial matters.

The claimants say Linklaters is acting on both sides of the same dispute and may hold the consortium's confidential information. In HC/OA 9/2026 they seek injunctions restraining Linklaters from acting for Thai Oil in the arbitration. In HC/SUM 1526/2026 they applied for production of 34 categories of documents from Linklaters and Thai Oil. The defendants said the requests were immaterial, a fishing expedition, privileged, and covered by the bar on producing private or internal correspondence.

1. Whether conflict of interest as such, as opposed to the real and sensible possibility of misuse of the claimants' confidential information, was a material issue in the injunction application.
2. Whether the documents sought were privileged, whether privilege had been waived, and whether judicial inspection or a Hollander order should be ordered.
3. Whether this was a special case justifying production of Linklaters' internal or private correspondence.

Materiality is judged against the material issues, and production will not be ordered to support a claim that does not exist. Following Harsha Rajkumar Mirpuri (Mrs) née Subita Shewakram Samtani v Shanti Shewakram Samtani Mrs Shanti Haresh Chugani [2018] 5 SLR 894, the court accepted that conflict of interest may be an analytical tool for its supervisory jurisdiction, and that court intervention in a Singapore-seated arbitration on this point was at least arguable. But Linklaters owed no duties to the claimants, and their central complaint, read from their own affidavit, was the risk that their confidential information could reach Thai Oil's team and be misused. That, and the adequacy of the information barriers, were the material questions. Documents about the scope of Linklaters' retainers, the clients' consents, engagement of other advisers, Thai Oil's internal decisions and later administration arrangements were therefore immaterial or already covered by sworn confirmations.

On privilege, the court held that legal advice privilege extends to foreign lawyers and foreign-qualified in-house counsel, and that only the client, not its solicitors, can waive it. Disclosing an engagement letter or the fact that advice was sought did not waive privilege over the advice. It also held, disagreeing with an earlier registrar's decision, that the court's power of judicial inspection survives the Rules of Court 2021, but should be used cautiously; a Hollander order, giving the applicant's solicitors confidential access, carries leakage risks and was unnecessary here.

Information asymmetry alone does not make a special case. Here, however, the sufficiency of the barriers was a central plank of the defence and would likely answer the misuse question directly, and refusing all production would be perverse. The orders were narrowed to avoid undue intrusion, focusing on the five-month period before the barriers existed.

The Assistant Registrar allowed the application in part. Linklaters was ordered to produce documents setting out the policies governing its information barriers between the two teams, the personnel subject to them and when, any unauthorised or attempted access, and any further protective steps; documents sufficient to identify members of both teams since October 2023 not already named by the claimants; and communications between the two teams discussing the Project from late 2023 to 24 March 2024. The other categories, including all those sought from Thai Oil, were dismissed, and costs were reserved.