Re Howe Martin Russell Thomas QC

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 14 August 2001
• Date: 14 August 2001
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 600012 of
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re Howe Martin Russell Thomas QC

[2001] SGHC 219

Yong Pung How CJ

Originating Motion No 600012 of 2001

High Court

Legal Profession–Admission–Ad hoc–Admission of Queen's Counsel–Three stage test for admission–Whether issues of sufficient complexity and difficulty–Whether local expertise present–Whether circumstances of case warrant admission–Whether applicant has special qualifications and experience–Section 21 (1) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Rev Ed)

The applicant applied for ad hoc admission under s 21 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) to act as leading counsel for Fico BV, the plaintiff in a patent infringement action in the High Court, until final disposal of the case. The claim pertained to an allegation that the defendant's machine had infringed three patents owned by the plaintiff. The applicant submitted that the case involved three main issues which justified his admission. The first issue was whether the plaintiff's invention was novel and involved an inventive step. The second related to a construction of s 71 of the Patents Act (Cap 221, 1995 Rev Ed). The third concerned an issue of administrative law in the context of the Patents Act.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) To obtain admission under s 21 of the LPA, the applicant must satisfy three conditions. First, the case in which he sought to appear must contain issues of law or fact of sufficient difficulty and complexity to require elucidation or argument by a Queen's Counsel. Second, the circumstances of the particular case warranted the court exercising its discretion in favour of his admission. Third, the applicant must possess special qualifications or experience so as to be suitable for admission: at [6].

(2) In the light of the applicant's impressive credentials, the requirement of special qualifications and experience was clearly satisfied: at [3].

(3) However, the main issues relevant to the case were not of such complexity and difficulty as to justify the admission of the applicant. Some of the issues had been considered by the Court of Appeal before and there were applicable binding precedents. The mere fact that there was no local decision interpreting a statutory provision in issue did not per se turn it into a complex or difficult issue. Decisions of other Commonwealth jurisdictions could be relied upon and issues of fact could be decided by the High Court based on witnesses' testimony and other documentary evidence: at [13], [14] and [17].

(4) The allegation that the level of patent expertise in Singapore was low was hardly justifiable. There had been patent cases involving local counsel and this was not a case where the necessary knowledge and experience was not available from, or could not be provided by, local counsel. The circumstances of the present case did not justify admission of the applicant: at [20] and [21].

Caplan Jonathan Michael QC, Re [1997] 3 SLR (R) 412; [1998] 1 SLR 440 (folld)

Flexon (Pte) Ltd v Bean Innovations Pte Ltd [2000] 3 SLR (R) 492; [2001] 1 SLR 24 (refd)

Flint Charles John Raffles QC, Re [2001] 1 SLR (R) 433; [2001] 2 SLR 276 (refd)

Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd v Institut Pasteur [2000] 3 SLR (R) 530; [2001] 1 SLR 121 (refd)

Merck & Co Inc v Pharmaforte Singapore Pte Ltd [2000] 2 SLR (R) 708; [2000] 3 SLR 717 (refd)

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

Price Arthur Leolin QC, Re [1998] 3 SLR (R) 346; [1998] 3 SLR 782 (refd)

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

V-Pile Technology (Luxembourg) SA v Peck Brothers Construction Pte Ltd [1997] 3 SLR (R) 981; [2000] 3 SLR 358 (refd)

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Rev Ed) s 21 (1) (consd)

Patents Act (Cap 221, 1995 Rev Ed) s 71

Dedar Singh Gill and Jupiter Kong (Drew & Napier LLC) for the...