Case Details
- Citation: [2007] SGHC 85
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2007-06-01
- Judges: Tan Lee Meng J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: -
- Defendant/Respondent: -
- Legal Areas: Legal Profession — Admission
- Statutes Referenced: Legal Profession Act, Legal Profession Act
- Cases Cited: [2007] SGHC 24, [2007] SGHC 85
- Judgment Length: 8 pages, 4,934 words
Summary
This case concerns the application by Mr. Gavin James Millar, a Queen's Counsel (QC) from the United Kingdom, to be admitted on an ad hoc basis to represent the defendants in two libel suits and related appeals in the Singapore courts. The key legal issue was whether the case was of sufficient difficulty and complexity to warrant the admission of a QC under Section 21 of the Legal Profession Act. The High Court ultimately granted the application for the libel suits but not for the jurisdiction appeals, finding that the libel suits but not the jurisdiction appeals met the statutory criteria.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The applicant, Mr. Gavin James Millar, is a QC from the United Kingdom who sought to be admitted to practice as an advocate and solicitor in the Supreme Court of Singapore under Section 21 of the Legal Profession Act. He wished to represent the defendants, Review Publishing Company Limited (a Hong Kong company that publishes the Far Eastern Economic Review) and Mr. Hugo Restall (the editor of the publication), in two libel suits filed against them by the Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Hsien Loong, and the Minister Mentor, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew.
The libel suits arose from an article published in the Far Eastern Economic Review in July/August 2006 that the plaintiffs claimed defamed them. As the defendants were based in Hong Kong, the plaintiffs had to obtain leave to serve the writs out of jurisdiction. The defendants challenged the service of the writs on two main grounds: (1) that the application for leave to serve out of jurisdiction was an abuse of process, and (2) that the writs were not served in accordance with the Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters between Singapore and China.
The defendants' challenge to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts was initially dismissed by an Assistant Registrar, but they appealed against that decision. The appeal was subsequently dismissed by Sundaresh Menon JC in February 2007. The defendants then filed further appeals against Menon JC's decision, which were the "jurisdiction appeals" that formed part of Mr. Millar's application for ad hoc admission.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue was whether the case, comprising both the libel suits and the jurisdiction appeals, was of sufficient difficulty and complexity to warrant the admission of a QC under Section 21 of the Legal Profession Act. This required the court to consider the three-stage test established in previous case law:
1. Whether the case involved issues of law and/or fact of sufficient difficulty and complexity to require elucidation and/or argument by a QC.
2. Whether the circumstances of the particular case warranted the court exercising its discretion in favor of the QC's admission.
3. Whether the QC was a suitable candidate for admission.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court made a distinction in its analysis between the jurisdiction appeals and the libel suits.
For the jurisdiction appeals, the court found that the issues, while involving public international law, were not so difficult and complex that they could not be adequately handled by the local lawyers representing the defendants. The court noted that the defendant's own counsel had indicated a preference for a Senior Counsel with expertise in international law, which Mr. Millar did not appear to possess based on the evidence. Therefore, the court concluded that the jurisdiction appeals did not meet the first stage of the test for admission of a QC.
However, for the libel suits, the court found that these cases were likely to involve issues of sufficient difficulty and complexity to warrant the admission of a QC. The court noted that libel actions are typically complex and require specialized expertise, which Mr. Millar possessed as an experienced defamation lawyer. The court also found that the circumstances of the case, involving high-profile plaintiffs and defendants based in different jurisdictions, warranted the exercise of the court's discretion to admit Mr. Millar.
What Was the Outcome?
The court dismissed Mr. Millar's application to be admitted on an ad hoc basis to represent the defendants in the jurisdiction appeals, but granted his application for the libel suits. The court found that the jurisdiction appeals did not meet the first stage of the test for admission of a QC, as the issues involved were not sufficiently difficult and complex. However, the court determined that the libel suits did satisfy the test, and that the circumstances of the case warranted the exercise of the court's discretion to admit Mr. Millar as a QC to represent the defendants.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides important guidance on the application of Section 21 of the Legal Profession Act, which allows for the ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel to appear in Singapore courts. The court's analysis of the three-stage test for admission, and its distinction between the jurisdiction appeals and the libel suits, helps to clarify the circumstances in which a QC may be admitted.
The case reinforces the principle that QCs will only be admitted in cases of genuine complexity and difficulty, where the issues cannot be adequately handled by local counsel. This helps to strike a balance between allowing litigants access to specialized expertise and promoting the development of a strong local bar in Singapore. The court's emphasis on the need for the QC to have relevant subject matter expertise is also noteworthy.
The decision in this case sets a precedent that will guide future applications for the ad hoc admission of QCs in Singapore, particularly in high-profile and complex cases involving defamation or public international law issues.
Legislation Referenced
- Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed)
Cases Cited
- [2007] SGHC 24
- [2007] SGHC 85
- [1992] 2 SLR 400
- [1992] 2 SLR 972
- [1998] 1 SLR 440
Source Documents
This article analyses [2007] SGHC 85 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.