## Facts

- Turner (East Asia) Pte Ltd, the main contractor for a Singapore construction project, subcontracted curtain wall work to Builders Federal (H.K.) Ltd.
- The subcontract contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration seated in Singapore under Singapore procedural law.
- A dispute arose, and a sole arbitrator was appointed in April 1987.
- Builders Federal engaged Debevoise & Plimpton, a New York law firm not admitted to practice in Singapore, to represent it in the arbitration.
- Turner filed suit seeking to restrain the firm’s participation, contending that the Legal Profession Act (LPA) prohibited unadmitted foreign lawyers from representing parties in a Singapore-seated arbitration.
- An interim injunction was granted restraining the foreign firm from acting; Builders Federal sought to discharge or set aside that restraint.

## Issues

1. Whether the Singapore Legal Profession Act applies to representation in Singapore-seated international commercial arbitration so as to prohibit foreign lawyers not admitted in Singapore from acting for a party.
2. Whether the interim injunction restraining the foreign law firm from appearing in the arbitration should be continued.

## Decision

- The High Court declined to continue the injunction.
- The court held that the LPA provisions invoked did not apply so as to bar foreign lawyers from representing parties in the arbitration.
- The court treated arbitration as distinct from court proceedings and found no clear statutory basis to extend court-focused admission restrictions to arbitral representation.
- Given the absence of a clear prohibition and the disruption to the ongoing arbitration, the court concluded interim relief was not justified.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes regulating admission to practice and unauthorized practice will not be extended to arbitral representation absent clear legislative language.
- International commercial arbitration is a private, consensual dispute-resolution process, and party autonomy generally includes freedom to choose representatives, including foreign counsel.
- Public-protection objectives behind professional regulation carry less weight where sophisticated commercial parties choose arbitration and select counsel by contract.
- Injunctive relief restraining counsel in arbitration requires a clear legal basis; where statutory application is doubtful, maintaining an injunction is generally unwarranted.

## Conclusion

The Singapore High Court set aside the restraint on foreign counsel, concluding that Singapore’s Legal Profession Act did not prohibit non-admitted foreign lawyers from representing parties in a Singapore-seated commercial arbitration and that the interim injunction should not be maintained.


Builders Fed. (H.K.) Ltd. v. Turner (E. Asia) Pte Ltd., 5 J. Int'l Arb. 139 (Sing. High Ct. 1988)