IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 21 OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT (CHAPER 161) AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MR. DAVID EDWARD MICHAEL YOUNG, QUEEN"S COUNSEL OF ENGLAND.

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeG P Selvam J
Judgment Date11 December 1991
Neutral Citation[1991] SGHC 177
Published date19 September 2003
Year1991
Citation[1991] SGHC 177
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)

Judgment:

GROUNDS OF DECISION

By Originating Motion No. 74 of 1991 David Edward Michael Young, a Queen's Counsel, applied to Court under s 21 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161) to appear as leading counsel at the trial of Civil Suit No. 290 of 1988 and in any interlocutory or appeal proceedings connected therewith. I dismissed the application. The applicant has appealed against the decision.

The application was made under s 20 (1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). This reads as follows:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, the court may, for the purpose of any one case where the court is satisfied that it is of sufficient difficulty and complexity and having regard to the circumstances of the case, admit to practise as an advoate and solicitor any person who -

(a) holds Her Majesty's Patent as Queen's Counsel; (b) does not ordinarily reside in Singapore or Malaysia but who has come or intends to come to Singapore for the purpose of appearing in the case; and (c) has special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case.

The genesis of this provision was s 7A of the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance which was added in 1962 and which stipulated two requirements for admission of Queen's Counsel :

(i) there must be one or more special reason in the public interest; and

(ii) the Queen's Counsel must have special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case in which he is instructed.

That provision was replaced in 1966 by s 18 (1) of the Legal Profession Act which provided :

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, the court may for the purpose of any one case admit to practise as an advocate and solicitor any person-

(a) who holds Her Majesty's Patent as Queen's Counsel; (b) who does not ordinarily reside in Singapore or Malaysia but who has come or intends to come to Singapore for the purpose of appearing in the case; and (c) who has special qualifications or experience for the purpose of this case.

The new law apparently relaxed the prerequisites for admission. While the need for special qualifications or experience of the Queen's Counsel was retained the law did not expressly stipulate that the nature of the case must be taken into consideration.

In any given field of law there will be no difficulty to find Queen's Counsel with special qualifications or experience. This led to admissions virtually becoming a matter of choice of a party to litigation in Singapore. In the past...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Re Andrews Geraldine Mary QC
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 Noviembre 2012
    ...Counsel of England, In the Matter of Section 21 of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) and in the Matter of an Application by Mr [1991] SGHC 177 (refd) Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG [2003] 2 SLR (R) 306; [2003] 2 SLR 306 (refd) Michael Jacob Beloff, Queen's Counsel of England, In the Matter......
  • Re Andrews Geraldine Mary QC
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 Noviembre 2012
    ...the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) and in the Matter of an Application by Mr David Edward Michael Young, Queen’s Counsel of England [1991] SGHC 177, Selvam J briefly referred to Re Phillips as an illustrative case where “[e]ven before the amendments [viz, the 1991 Amendments] the Court ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT