Madison Pacific Trust Limited and others v David Salim and another

Madison Pacific Trust Limited and three other applicants won an arbitration (SIAC Arbitration No 417 of 2021) on 16 August 2023 against claimants including Mr David Salim, and obtained permission in Originating Application No 891 of 2023 to enforce the award as a judgment. On 6 October 2023 the court granted a Mareva injunction against Mr Salim and appointed Joshua James Taylor and Chew Ee Ling as receivers and managers of his assets in aid of it.

Gabriel Law Corporation had acted for Mr Salim in the arbitration until it was discharged on 8 February 2023, and also in HC/S 123/2021, a suit he brought which ended on 23 September 2021 and whose papers were sealed. By Summons No 1067 of 2025 the receivers sought an order that the firm give them information and documents about Mr Salim's assets, including where the payments of its fees came from, what he told it about his funds when he became a client, and the papers in Suit 123. The firm objected on grounds of legal advice privilege and the sealing order. Philip Jeyaretnam J heard the application.

1. Whether the receivership order empowered the receivers to obtain the information and documents sought from the law firm.
2. Whether the information sought was protected by legal advice privilege under s 128(1) of the Evidence Act 1893.
3. Whether the receivers could access privileged material or waive privilege in Mr Salim's place.
4. Whether the receivers could obtain the sealed papers in Suit 123 through a production order.

A court-appointed receiver's powers come only from the order. The order let the receivers obtain information, not documents as such, and its power to investigate transfers from interested companies covered fee payments said to come from PT Supermal Karawaci; the power to carry on business did not.

On privilege, the court preferred asking whether disclosure would reveal confidential legal advice over a strict line between facts and communications. Details of how fees were paid were not made for the purpose of legal advice and were not privileged. A request for everything about Mr Salim's assets might capture privileged communications.

The receivers could not reach privileged material. Privilege is a personal right, and nothing in the order expressly or by necessary implication allowed them to see privileged material or waive it, a principle applied to statutes in Yap Sing Lee v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1267 [2011] 2 SLR 998 and applying a fortiori to court orders. Unlike a trustee in bankruptcy, no property vests in a receiver. The judge also doubted the court could make an order compelling an individual to give up privilege, given ss 128 and 131 of the Evidence Act.

On the sealed papers, following Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 246, the purpose of the sealing order would be defeated by disclosure, and it might protect other parties too. The proper course was to apply to inspect the case file or to vary the sealing order, not to go around it.

The court allowed the application in part. It ordered the firm to give the receivers, within 14 days, the information (but not documents) about the payment of its fees and the source of funds Mr Salim disclosed at onboarding, with the receivers paying the reasonable costs of doing so. It refused the broader request for all information on Mr Salim's assets and the request for the sealed papers and any judgment or settlement in Suit 123. The firm was awarded its costs of the application.