Re Nicholas William Henric QC and another application

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 18 April 2002
• Date: 18 April 2002
• Docket Number: Originating Motions Nos 600021
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re Nicholas William Henric QC and another application

[2002] SGHC 74

Tay Yong Kwang JC

Originating Motions Nos 600021 and 600023 of 2002

High Court

Legal Profession–Admission–Ad hoc–Applications to admit two Queen's Counsel–Whether case of sufficient difficulty and complexity–Whether circumstances of case warrant court exercising discretion in favour of admission–Whether instructing solicitor necessary–Section 21 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed)

The two originating motions concerned applications to admit two Queen's Counsel (“QC”), William Henric Nicholas QC and Martin Lee Chu Ming QC, as advocates and solicitors pursuant to s 21 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) for the purpose of appearing as counsel for Dr Chee Soon Juan (“Dr Chee”), the defendant in two High Court actions. The actions, Suit 1459/2001 and Suit 1460/2001, were commenced by Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong respectively.

In his supporting affidavits, Dr Chee stated, inter alia, that (a) the cases were extremely complex defamation matters, involving factual and legal issues of publication and republication; qualified privilege, contextual truth, comment and justification; there were also counterclaims in defamation and third party claims; and (b) the nature of the issues in the cases and the identity and positions of the plaintiffs were further powerful reasons why it was proper and necessary for him to engage the services of leading counsel outside of Singapore.

Held, dismissing both applications:

(1) At the first stage, the applicant must demonstrate that the case contained issues of law and/or fact of sufficient difficulty and complexity to require elucidation and/or argument by a Queen's Counsel. At the second stage, the applicant must persuade the court that the circumstances of the particular case warranted the court exercising its discretion in favour of his admission. Finally, he must satisfy the court of his suitability for admission: at [38].

(2) The onus was on the applicant to show in an affidavit the specific issues for which admission was sought and persuade the court that they were complex and difficult. Mere assertions that cases or issues were difficult and complex were of no assistance to the court. Here, the affidavits in support of the two applications merely asserted that these cases were extremely complex defamation matters without explaining how they were so. The cases here seemed to only require the application of established principles to the facts: at [38] and [39].

(3) The counterclaim and third party proceedings were essentially procedural matters and they did not necessarily increase the complexity of the case. It had not been shown to the court how the counterclaim and the third party proceedings had raised the issues to such level of difficulty and complexity that the admission of one QC was warranted, let alone two QC. In the circumstances, the court was not satisfied that the two cases were of sufficient difficulty and complexity to warrant the admission of QC: at [40] and [41].

(4) Dr Chee appeared to be implying in the affidavits that no local lawyer was able and willing to act for him. While the court need not be convinced of the absolute absence of any local counsel capable of taking on or willing to take on the cases, no evidence had been proffered on this point to assist the court in the balancing exercise. The applications for admission therefore also failed at the “second stage”: at [42] and [43].

(5) Section 21 of the Legal Profession Act contemplated an application by a QC and not the litigants. It also assumed that there was an instructing solicitor on record but did not make that a requirement or a necessary feature of every application. If a litigant chose to act in person, he or the QC in question might affirm the affidavit specified in s 21 (3). The litigant acting in person might also address the court in the way an instructing advocate and solicitor may. If the litigant chose to affirm the affidavit, he could not claim to have no or insufficient knowledge of what was required of him in ad hoc admissions: at [44].

(6) There was no legal impediment to the admission of more than one QC for any one case under s 21. However, the onus of satisfying the requirements of that section necessarily became that much heavier. Whether both QC, if admitted, should be allowed their costs for getting up the case and for their attendance in court was something which the party involved would have to persuade the court: at [45].

(7) The court also ordered Dr Chee to personally pay to the Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore the prescribed fee of $1,000 each in respect of each of the applications within one month from the date of the decision: at [48].

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

Howe Martin Russell Thomas QC, Re [2001] 2 SLR (R) 743; [2001] 3 SLR 575 (folld)

Littlemore Stuart QC, Re [2002] 1 SLR (R) 198; [2002] 1 SLR 296 (refd)

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

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) s 21 (consd);s 34 (e)

Legal Profession (Fees for Ad Hoc Admission) Rules (Cap 161, R 14, 1994 Ed)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) O 59 r 19

Davinder Singh SC, Hri Kumar and Siraj Omar (Drew & Napier LLC) for the plaintiffs in Suits Nos 1459 and 1460 of 2001

Defendant in person in Suits Nos 1459 and 1460 of 2001

Jeffrey Chan and Leong Wing Tuck for the Attorney-General

Yang Lih Shyng for the Law Society of Singapore.

Tay Yong Kwang JC

The applications

1 These two originating motions were heard before me together. They concern applications to admit two Queen's Counsel (“QC”), Mr William Henric Nicholas QC and Mr Martin Lee Chu Ming QC, as advocates and solicitors pursuant to s 21 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) for the purpose of appearing as counsel for Dr Chee Soon Juan, the defendant in two High Court actions. Suit 1459/2001 is the action commenced by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Suit 1460/2001 is the action commenced by Mr Goh Chok Tong.

The affidavits

2 In his affidavit filed in support of Mr William Henric Nicholas QC's admission, Dr Chee states:

1. 1. Iam the defendant in this suit. I wish to have the applicant to be my counsel in the present suits, and in all proceedings including interlocutory or appeal proceedings connected therewith, until final disposal thereof.

2. 2. The plaintiffs are claiming that I have allegedly spoken and published defamatory words of and concerning them. I refer the court to the plaintiffs' amended statements of claim.

3. 3. The applicant William Henric Nicholas QC was appointed one of Her Majesty's Counsel on 2 September 1981.

4. 4. The applicant does not ordinarily reside in Singapore or Malaysia, but intends to come to Singapore for the purpose of appearing in the present cases.

5. 5. The applicant William Henric Nicholas has special expertise for the purpose of the cases, in that he is an advocate specialising in defamation in all the states and territories of Australia excluding Tasmania.

6. 6. The cases are extremely complex defamation matters, involving factual and legal issues of publication and republication; qualified privilege, contextual truth, comment and justification; there are also counterclaims in...