Re Price Arthur Leolin QC

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 07 September 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 300
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 26 of 1998
• Date: 07 September 1998
• Year: 1998
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Daniel John and Michelle Jeganathan (John, Tan & Chan)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 300
• Defendant Counsel: Pang Khang Chau (State Counsel),Rahgavan Sachi (Arfat Selvam & Gunasingham),Davinder Singh SC and Hri Kumar (Drew & Napier),Benjamin Yim
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether sufficiently complex points of law and/or facts arise,Admission,Whether applicant suitable for admission,Legal Profession,Queen's Counsel,Whether circumstances of case justify exercise of judicial discretion in applicant's favour,Three-stage test for admission,s 21(1) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Ed)

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

This was an application under s 21(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Ed) by one Arthur Leolin Price QC for admission to the Singapore Bar to act for Madam Teo Siu Har in the matter of Suit No 2523/96.

2.On 27 January 1997, Madam Teo was joined as a co-defendant to Suit No 2523/96 and also Suit Nos 1116/96, 2524/96, 2525/96, 70/97, 76/97, 82/97, 172/97, 181/97, 182/97, 187/97 and 188/97 together with her husband, one Tang Liang Hong (Tang).

3.Tang was sued for defamation in respect of certain statements made by him concerning the various plaintiffs to the press and public audiences in 1996. Judgment in default was entered against Tang in these suits and an appeal lodged by Tang was heard and dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

4.The reason for joining Madam Teo to these suits was that the various plaintiffs allege that Madam Teo is holding assets in her name on trust for Tang, and that those assets are, or should be, susceptible to execution by the various plaintiffs for damages and costs. Also on 27 January 1997, the plaintiffs in these various suits sought and obtained a Mareva injunction enjoining her from dealing with assets in her name, including, inter alia, the property known as 75 Hua Guan Avenue.

5.On 27 March 1997, Madam Teo`s lawyers issued notice for directions No 2258/97 to determine the issue of ownership of the assets in her name. Lai Kew Chai J ordered that the issue of ownership be tried separately from the defamation actions against Tang, which have now been disposed of in the manner I have already described. An appeal against the orders of Lai Kew Chai J was lodged vide CA 72/97 but was withdrawn on 24 June 1997. The matter is now proceeding to trial on the issue of ownership and it was for this purpose that the admission of Mr Price was sought.

6.I dismissed the application and now give my reasons.

7. The test for admission

In Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC (No 2) [1998] 1 SLR 440 , I re-iterated that there is a three-stage test for admission under s 21(1). This was the same three-stage test laid down by the Court of Appeal in considering an appeal against the dismissal of an application by the same Mr Price to act in another unrelated action: see Price Arthur Leolin v A-G [1992] 2 SLR 972 .

8.The test is as follows. First, the applicant must demonstrate that the case contains issues of law or fact of sufficient difficulty and complexity to require elucidation or argument by a Queen`s Counsel. Secondly, the applicant must persuade the court that the circumstances of the particular case warrant the court exercising its discretion in favour of his admission. Lastly, he must satisfy the court of his suitability for admission.

9. Suitability for admission

Dealing with the final stage first, Mr Price`s credentials revealed that he is eminently qualified to handle the case at hand, or for that matter, any case involving family trusts. He took silk in 1969 and has since appeared before the House of Lords in several important English decisions on family trusts, including National Westminster Bank v Morgan [1985] AC 686, Lloyd`s Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 and CIBC Mortgages v Pitt [1994] 1 AC 200.

10. Complexity of case

I was not satisfied, however, that the applicant was able to cross the first hurdle, that is, to demonstrate that the present case is sufficiently complex, in law or fact, to warrant the admission of a Queen`s Counsel. Mr Daniel John, who appeared for Mr Price, did not persuade me that the legal issues before the court were so difficult that the court would require the services of a Queen`s Counsel to elaborate on the finer points. Nor was I convinced that Mr Price`s skills were required for the factual questions in the defendant`s case to be rightly determined.

11. The issues before the court

The facts alleged and relied on by the plaintiff are that in or about 1981, Tang acquired the property known as 75 Hua Guan Avenue in the name of his wife. The property was paid for out of the proceeds of sale of an apartment in Jervois Close which was paid for by Tang but which was also registered in the...