This is an application by the applicants for the continuation of an interim injunction granted by this court on 18 August 1987 restraining Messrs. Debevoise and Plimpton, a firm of New York attorneys (herein called "D&P"), or any partner or associate thereof from acting or appearing on behalf of the respondents in an arbitration in Singapore between the applicants and the respondents.

The following facts are not in dispute. The applicants, a company incorporated in Singapore, were the main contractors for the building project known as "The Gateway Project" which was a development along Beach Road of two multistorey office blocks which were designed and laid out in such a manner as to give an architectural impression of a gateway into the island of Singapore. For reasons which do not concern us, the applicants stopped work in December 1984 as a result of which the disputes arising therefrom between the applicants and the employers have been referred to arbitration under the main contract.

The respondents were the sub-contractors for the construction of the curtain walls for the Gateway Project. Following the stoppage of work by the applicants, the respondents made claims against the applicants under the sub-contract. After a series of skirmishes between the parties in the High Court the disputes were referred to arbitration and one Douglas Smith, a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, both of England, was on 9 April 1987 appointed by the court as the sole arbitrator.

On 25 June 1987, the solicitors for the applicants received from D&P by facsimile transmission a letter also dated 25 June 1987 from D&P in New York to the arbitrator in London stating, inter alia, that they represented the respondents in the arbitration between the applicants and the respondents. On 1 July 1987, D&P informed the arbitrator that they were ready to attend a preliminary meeting at an early date and suggested London as the most satisfactory venue. In this letter, D&P stated that they were "acting as counsel for [both respondents]". On 7 July 1987, D&P submitted under a covering letter the respondents' statement of claim. The covering letter was signed by two partners who described themselves as "counsel for claimants". The cover page and the final page of the statement of claim each bears the description of D&P as "attorneys for claimants". The arbitrator subsequently fixed the preliminary meeting to be held in Singapore, as the proper venue, on 20 August 1987. On 6 August 1987, D&P wrote to the arbitrator stating its intention to attend the preliminary meeting in Singapore as fixed by the arbitrator.

On 18 August 1987, the solicitors for the applicants commenced these proceedings and on the same day obtained ex parte an interim injunction restraining D&P from acting or appearing in the said arbitration on the ground that such representation or appearance at the arbitration in Singapore would contravene the Legal Profession Act. As a result of the injunction, D&P did not attend the preliminary meeting held in Singapore on 20 August 1987. It is, however, not disputed that they continue to represent the respondents as attorneys up to the present day in relation to the dispute between the applicants and the respondents in their capacity as attorneys.

The other matters which are common ground between the applicants and the respondents are as follows:

(1) D&P are American attorneys having an office in New York and have not been admitted as advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore.

(2) D&P are employed by the respondents as attorneys and counsel for the said arbitration.

(3) The arbitration clause (clause 22) in the sub-contract provides specifically that the arbitration be in accordance with the Arbitration Act of Singapore; the procedure of the arbitration is also governed by the law of Singapore and the arbitration is subject to the supervision of