Re Oliver David Keightley Rideal QC

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong J
• Judgment Date: 30 April 1992
• Neutral Citation: [1992] SGHC 112
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 16 of 1991
• Date: 30 April 1992
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1992
• Plaintiff Counsel: Quek Peck Hong and Ng Hwee Chong (Colin Ng & Partners)
• Citation: [1992] SGHC 112
• Defendant Counsel: Suresh Damodara,Sarjit Singh Gill and Dilhan Pillay (Shook Lin & Bok),Koh Juat Jong
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Application for Queen's Counsel to argue an application to discharge interlocutory injunction,Legal Profession,ss 18 & 21 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Ed),Whether application for discharge of interlocutory injunction raised issues of law or fact of sufficient difficulty or complexity,Ad hoc,Whether circumstances of the case justified admission of Queen's Counsel,Admission

Judgment:

GROUNDS OF DECISION

This was an application for an order under section 18 of the Legal Profession Act for the admission of David Keightley Rideal Oliver, QC to practise as an advocate and solicitor for the purpose of appearing in Suit No 147 of 1991 on behalf of the plaintiffs therein, and in all other proceedings connected therewith including interlocutory applications and appeals therefrom. It was not and could not be disputed that Mr Oliver had the special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case.

Suit No 147 of 1991 was commenced on 19 January 1991. The Writ contained the following Indorsement of Claim:

(1) A Declaration that the presentation or issuing of a Petition substantially in the form of the drafts annexed hereto or either of them or any other Petitions or proceedings for the winding up of the 1st Plaintiff on any of the grounds therein referred to would constitute an abuse of process of the Court.

(2) An injunction restraining the Defendant by himself or by his agents or servants or otherwise howsoever from presenting or issuing or causing to be presented or issued any Petition substantially in the form of the drafts annexed hereto or either of them or any other Petitions or proceedings for the winding up of the 1st Plaintiff on any of the grounds therein referred to.

(3) Costs. (4) Further or other reliefs.

On the same day, the plaintiffs obtained, ex parte, an interlocutory injunction until the trial of the action or until further order in terms of paragraph 2 of the Indorsement of Claim. On 24 January 1991, the defendant made an application ("the discharge application") to set aside the interlocutory injunction. The application was fixed for hearing on 19 April 1991. This application for admission of Mr Oliver was made 20 February 1991. Although, in terms, it was for the purpose of the entire proceedings in Suit No 147 of 1991, in reality, it was for the immediate purpose of the hearing of discharge application.

The defendant, through his counsel, objected to the application in so far as it related to the immediate purpose of having Mr Oliver admitted to appear at the hearing of the discharge application. The ground of the objection was that the issues in that application were not of sufficient difficulty or complexity to justify the appearance of Queen's Counsel. Counsel did not dispute that Mr Oliver had the special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the discharge application.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I made no order on the application relating to the hearing of Suit 147 of 1991 or any appeal therefrom, it being a premature application. I also made no order on the application in relation to all other proceedings connected therewith as there were, as yet, no other proceedings.

Finally, I also made no order on the application relating to the hearing of the discharge application as I was not satisfied that it raised issues of law or fact of sufficient difficulty or complexity and having regard to the circumstances of the case. I said that I would give my reasons in due course.

This application for admission was made under s 21 of the Legal Profession Act as amended by Act No 10 of 1991. Section 21, as amended, reads as follows:

21.-(1) 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.

The object of Act No 10 of 1991 was to lay the foundation for the development of a strong local bar by the imposition of more stringent conditions for the admission of Queen's Counsel to appear in our Courts but at the same time to continue to allow litigants to avail of their services in appropriate cases. The function of the Courts is to maintain a proper balance between the two competing interests. Prior to the amendment, the primary consideration for admission of a Queen's Counsel was whether he had special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case. The Court was seldom required to exercise its general discretion against admission as it was a common practice of solicitors for the parties not to object to each other's applications. The new law requires the court to take into consideration two additional requirements: (1) the case must be of sufficient difficulty and complexity; and (2) having regard to the circumstances of the case.

With reference to the first requirement, it is the judge, and not the parties, or their counsel, or other interested parties, who has to be satisfied that a case is of sufficient difficulty and complexity. The considered views of instructing solicitors on the issues raised are relevant and should be given their proper weight, but mere assertions that cases or issues are difficult and complex are of no assistance to the court in discharging its duty. It is therefore incumbent on counsel to identify the issues to the judge hearing the application and his views on the applicable law. A case may be difficulty and complex in relation to the facts as well as the law.

The second requirement can only be considered on a case by case basis. As circumstances vary from case to case, no more need be said about this requirement.

Nature of Issues

In this case, the plaintiffs had prior notice of the defendant's intention to present one or both the petitions. The draft petitions were sent to the plaintiffs as an invitation to the plaintiff (or as a threat to the plaintiffs, as perceived by them) to settle their differences. The plaintiffs rejected the invitation (or the threat) and commenced Suit No 147 of 1991.

The plaintiffs obtained the interlocutory injunction on the basis of an affidavit which gave the following grounds for the relief: (i) that the allegations of the defendant had to be evaluated in the...