Re Oliver David Keightley Rideal QC

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeChan Sek Keong J
Judgment Date30 April 1992
Neutral Citation[1992] SGHC 112
Citation[1992] SGHC 112
Date30 April 1992
SubjectApplication 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
Publication Date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselQuek Peck Hong and Ng Hwee Chong (Colin Ng & Partners)
Docket NumberOriginating Motion No 16 of 1991
Defendant CounselSuresh Damodara,Sarjit Singh Gill and Dilhan Pillay (Shook Lin & Bok),Koh Juat Jong

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Godfrey Gerald, Queen's Counsel v UBS AG and Others
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 15 April 2003
    ...was sufficient to warrant the admission of a QC. As Chan Sek Keong J (as he then was) put it in Re Oliver David Keightley Rideal QC [1992] 2 SLR 400 at p 404I, "novelty of this nature is not even prima facie evidence of complexity". Indeed, "the logical approach should instead be to refer t......
  • Re Platts-Mills Mark Fortescue QC
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 6 December 2005
    ...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 (folld) Peng Lian Trading Co v Contour Optik Inc [2003] 2 SLR (R) 560; [2003] 2 SLR 560 (refd) Price Arthur Leolin v AG [1......
  • Re Nicholas William Henric QC and another application
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 April 2002
    ...[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) ......
  • Re Gyles QC
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 April 1996
    ...in S 1860/92 Joanna Foong (AG's Chambers) for the Attorney-General M P Rai for the Law Society. 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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT