Price Arthur Leolin v Attorney General and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong J
• Judgment Date: 30 September 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGCA 65
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 38 of 1991
• Date: 30 September 1992
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1992
• Plaintiff Counsel: Robert Tock and Ng Liang Poh (PC Tock & Co)
• Citation: [1992] SGCA 65
• Defendant Counsel: CS Wu (Donaldson & Burkinshaw),Janice Woon,William Jansen (Jansen Menon & Partners)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Whether circumstances of the case justify admission of Queen's Counsel,Civil Procedure,s 21 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Ed),Admission of Queen's Counsel to argue an application for leave to appeal on questions of law arising out of interim arbitration award,Appeal against dismissal of applications,Costs of proceedings,Costs,Case must be of sufficient difficulty and complexity and court must have regard to the circumstances in the case,Admission,Ad hoc,General principles in awarding costs in such applications,Application for admission of Queen's Counsel,Costs to be awarded against appellant,Whether application raised issues of law or fact of sufficient difficulty or complexity

This was an appeal from the order of court dated 1 March 1991 by Karthigesu J, dismissing the appellant`s application for admission to practise as an advocate and solicitor under the provisions of s 21(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Ed) (`the Act`). The appellant applied for admission for the purpose of appearing as leading counsel on behalf of Tan Tong Meng (Pte) Ltd (`T Co`) in an application for leave of the court to appeal on questions of law arising out of the interim award dated 8 March 1989 made by the arbitrator in Originating Motion No 25 of 1989.

The main dispute concerned a contract of November 1975 for the construction of an apartment block. The building contractors, Artic Builders & Co (Pte) Ltd (`A Co`) claimed against the property developers, T Co, a fair price for work done and materials supplied on a quantum meruit basis on the ground of wrongful repudiation of the contract by T Co. T Co counterclaimed for damages for failure to complete the construction on the due date and for breach of the agreement. In May 1979, an interim award was made by the original arbitrator, who found that T Co had wrongfully repudiated the contract. Four preliminary issues still left in dispute after that interim award were then submitted to a new arbitrator. On 28 January 1989 T Co applied to instruct a Queen`s Counsel to represent them in the proceedings before the new arbitrator. No objection was taken by the Attorney General`s Chambers, the Law Society or A Co to the admission of Mr RA Field QC. The new arbitrator made his interim award on 8 March 1989. T Co subsequently filed a notice of originating motion for leave to appeal on questions of law arising from this award. Mr Field eventually became unable to continue in the matter, and, on 25 January 1991, T Co applied for Mr Arthur Leolin Price QC to be admitted to represent them in the application for leave to appeal in the arbitration proceedings and in any related proceedings. A Co opposed this application. So did the Attorney General and the Law Society. On 11 March 1991 Karthigesu J dismissed the application for admission of Mr Price for the purposes of the application for leave to appeal, with liberty to apply in the event that such leave were granted.

Although s 21(1) of the Act did not spell out the criteria the court was to follow in considering an application by a Queen`s Counsel for admission to appear in any one case, Karthigesu J was of the view that the court should nevertheless be guided in the exercise of its discretion by considerations of the difficulty and complexity of the case, both as regards the facts and the law. He therefore dismissed the appellant`s application on the ground that the attendance of a Queen`s Counsel in an application for leave to appeal on points of law was unwarranted, leaving aside the question of the hearing of arguments on points of law, should leave in fact be granted.

At the date of hearing of the present appeal, s 21(1) of the Act had been amended by Act No 10 of 1991 and the amendment had been in force since 1 February 1991. Section 21(1) originally provided for the admission for the purpose of any one case of any person who held Her Majesty`s patent as Queen`s Counsel, who did not ordinarily reside in Singapore or Malaysia but who had come or intended to come to Singapore for the purpose of appearing in the case, and who had special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case. The amending Act No 10 of 1991 added to it further restrictions: such a person may now be admitted only where the court is satisfied that the case is of sufficient difficulty and complexity and having regard to the circumstances of the case.

The objective of the amendment was to help the development of a strong core of good advocates at the local bar by restricting access to Queen`s Counsel only in the more difficult and complex cases. Section 21(1) as amended reads:

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 advocate 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.

Thus, an application by a Queen`s Counsel for admission under s 21(1) should be supported by an affidavit or affidavits setting out concisely the issues concerned in the case for which admission is being sought. The applicant in each case ought to identify them and then persuade the court that those issues are difficult and complex enough to warrant the assistance of a Queen`s Counsel. The difficulty and complexity required is not limited to questions of law - it is foreseeable that such assistance will be valuable in cases dealing with complex facts, so as to determine what the actual legal problems are before turning to address those specific problems.

In the present appeal, counsel for the appellant premised his main argument on the submission that the application for leave to appeal was in this case of particular importance because the...