We value your privacy. We use cookies to analyse our traffic. To find out more, read our Data Protection Notice. By clicking "OK", you consent to our use of cookies.
Traditionally, legal professional privilege was understood to protect only lawyer–client communications, not facts perceived by the lawyer. But as our Director Colin Liew argued in his book on Legal Professional Privilege, this distinction is impractical. As suggested by Colin, a better approach is to ask whether the disclosure would reveal the nature or content of the confidential legal advice sought or given.
In Madison Pacific Trust Ltd v David Salim [2025] SGHC 128, the Singapore High Court endorsed Colin’s view, calling it a “more appropriate” test than the traditional formulation.
Our Directors, Colin Liew and Daniel Tan provide a full case update with some practical takeaways here.
Data Protection Notice – © 2025 Providence Law Asia – Design by OLC
© 2025 Providence Law Asia