LITT
Try LITT free
Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC [2006] SGHC 125
The court dismissed an application for the ad hoc admission of a Queen's Counsel because the case did not meet the first stage of the three-stage test, as it was not of sufficient difficulty or complexity to require the services of a Queen's Counsel.
Re Seed Nigel John QC [2003] SGHC 177
The court held that the admission of a Queen's Counsel in a criminal case requires a 'special reason' under s 21(2) of the Legal Profession Act, and that the complexity of the case or the presence of ecclesiastical issues did not constitute such a reason where local counsel was c
Re Littlemore Stuart QC [2002] SGHC 16
An applicant for ad hoc admission as a Queen's Counsel must be a fit and proper person, which includes being respectful of the judiciary; disparaging the judiciary as 'compliant' or 'in the pocket of the government' renders the applicant unsuitable.
Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan [2002] SGHC 122
The court dismissed the application, ruling that the parties were estopped from re-litigating the complexity of the case for Queen's Counsel admission. A previous final decision had already determined that the suits did not warrant such admission.
Re Flint Charles John Raffles QC [2001] SGHC 47
The court dismissed an application for ad hoc admission of a Queen's Counsel because the case did not meet the threshold of sufficient difficulty and complexity that local counsel could not adequately handle.