Re Gyles QC

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 15 April 1996
• Date: 15 April 1996
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 11 of 1996
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re Gyles QC

[1996] SGHC 76

Choo Han Teck JC

Originating Motion No 11 of 1996

High Court

Legal Profession–Admission–Application for admission of Queen's Counsel–Whether case of sufficient difficulty and complexity to justify admission–Whether Queen's Counsel had degree of specialisation or experience pertinent to case–Necessity of considering ability and availability of local counsel–Section 21 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed)–Words and Phrases–“Sufficient difficulty and complexity”–Section 21 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed)

The plaintiff applied for the admission of Roger Vincent Gyles QC (“Gyles QC”) to practise on the plaintiff's behalf as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. The plaintiff had commenced proceedings against the first and second defendants seeking inter alia the specific performance of an agreement to buy land. However, on the defendants' application the action was struck out. The plaintiff appealed and applied for the admission of Gyles QC to practise as an advocate and solicitor for the purpose of appearing on the plaintiff's behalf to appeal against the order striking out the action. This application was allowed. Gyles QC appeared and succeeded in persuading the Court of Appeal to set aside the order striking out the action. The Court of Appeal found that there was a serious question of fact to be tried and that issues of law of fundamental importance had been raised. Following the restoration of the action the plaintiff sought to have Gyles QC appear for him at trial, submitting that the issues of fact and law to be raised at trial were complex and that Gyles QC had the special qualifications to deal properly with those matters.

Held, dismissing the plaintiff's application:

(1) The word “sufficient” in s 21 (1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) was an important qualification, since not every difficult or complex case justified the admission of a Queen's Counsel. The affidavit supporting the application had to clearly set out what made the case sufficiently complex and the applicant had to show why the circumstances justified counsel's appearance. It had to be a case which had difficult or complex points of law or fact or both, and which also required the specialised knowledge or experience and expert court craft of the Queen's Counsel: at [5].

(2) A case would be sufficiently difficult or complex if the true shades of the law and fact could only be illuminated through the advocacy and presentation of that counsel, or if there were special circumstances which made it difficult or impossible for any local counsel to act: at [5].

(3) While the questions of law in this case might well prove difficult, the pleadings did not suggest that the legal or factual issues raised were so difficult that they required a Queen's Counsel. While counsel's familiarity with the case was a factor for consideration, it was not an overly important one. This was a fresh application and had to be decided on its merits. Although the previous admission was a plus factor in the plaintiff's favour, it was only one of the considerations: at [10], [11] and [12].

(4) The court required Queen's Counsel to have a degree of specialisation or experience pertinent to the issues in the case. Some experience was not sufficient: at [13].

(5) Although not specifically provided in s 21 of the Act, it was necessary to consider the ability and availability of local counsel when measuring the degree of difficulty and complexity of the case in question: at [13].

Oliver David Keightley Rideal QC, Re [1992] 1 SLR (R) 961; [1992] 2 SLR 400 (folld)

Price Arthur Leolin v AG [1992] 3 SLR (R) 113; [1992] 2 SLR 972 (folld)

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed) s 21 (consd)

Devinder Rai (Harry Elias & Partners) for the applicant

Maria Ho (Allen & Gledhill) for the first defendant in S 1860/92

Chua Lee Meng (Lee & Lee) for the second defendant in S 1860/92

Joanna Foong (AG's Chambers) for the Attorney-General

M P Rai for the Law Society.

Choo Han Teck JC

1 This was an application for the admission of Roger Vincent Gyles QC to practise as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore on behalf of the plaintiff Dr David Tan Soo Leng in S 1860/92. The plaintiff in that suit is an ophthalmic surgeon practising as such on the Roll of Specialist Medical Staff of the Mount Elizabeth Hospital. The first defendant is an exempt private limited company engaged in the business of real estate development and investment. The second defendant is a public company which owned a building known as the Mount Elizabeth Medical...