Howe v Thomas: Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel in Singapore Patent Infringement Action
Mr. Martin Russell Thomas Howe QC sought ad hoc admission to the High Court of Singapore to represent Fico BV in a patent infringement action against the defendants. The application was dismissed by Chief Justice Yong Pung How, who found that the case did not meet the criteria of sufficient difficulty and complexity as required by Section 21 of the Legal Profession Act, and that local expertise was available.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel to Singapore High Court was dismissed due to insufficient complexity and local expertise.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Neutral | Neutral | Wilson Hue Kuan Chen of Attorney-General |
| Law Society | Respondent | Association | Neutral | Neutral | Pradeep Kumar of Law Society |
| Defendants | Defendant | Other | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Martin Russell Thomas Howe QC | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Fico BV | Plaintiff, Applicant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wilson Hue Kuan Chen | Attorney-General |
| Pradeep Kumar | Law Society |
| Lai Yew Fei | Cooma Lau & Loh |
| Dedar Singh Gill | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Jupiter Kong | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Mr. Howe sought ad hoc admission to represent Fico BV in a patent infringement action.
- The patents in question related to a moulding machine for semiconductor lead frames.
- The plaintiffs alleged that certain mechanical parts of the defendants' IDEALmold infringed their patents.
- The applicant cited three main issues to justify his admission.
- The court found that the issues were not sufficiently complex to warrant the admission of a Queen's Counsel.
- The court also found that local expertise was available to handle the case.
5. Formal Citations
- Howe Martin Russell Thomas QC, OM 600012/2001, [2001] SGHC 219
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Decision Date | |
| Trial fixed for August 2001 |
7. Legal Issues
- Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application, finding that the case was not sufficiently complex and local expertise was available.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Complexity of issues
- Availability of local expertise
- Special qualifications and experience
- Patent Infringement
- Outcome: The court considered the issues of novelty and inventive step in the context of the patent infringement claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Validity of patents
- Novelty
- Inventive step
- Infringement
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunction
- Damages
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Patent Infringement
10. Practice Areas
- Admissions
- Intellectual Property Litigation
11. Industries
- Manufacturing
- Semiconductors
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Oliver David Keightley Rideal QC | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 400 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the 1991 amendment to s 21 of the Legal Profession Act regarding ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel. |
| Price Arthur Leolin v A-G | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 972 | Singapore | Cited for the objective of the amendment to help the development of a strong core of good advocates at the local bar by restricting access to Queen's Counsel only in the more difficult and complex cases. |
| Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC (No 2) | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited for the three-stage test for ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel. |
| Re Flint Charles John Raffles QC | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 276 | Singapore | Cited for the maturity of the local Bar and its ability to handle complex cases. |
| Merck & Co Inc v Pharmaforte Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 717 | Singapore | Cited for the test to determine novelty and inventive step. |
| Genelabs Diagnostics v Institut Pasteur | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 121 | Singapore | Cited for the test to determine novelty and inventive step. |
| Re Price Arthur Leolin QC | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 782 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize that the High Court must rule in accordance with binding precedents. |
| V-Pile Technology (Luxembourg) SA v Peck Bros Construction | High Court | No | [2000] 3 SLR 358 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a patent case handled by local counsel. |
| Flexon v Bean Innovations | High Court | No | [2001] 1 SLR 24 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a patent case handled by local counsel. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Ed) | Singapore |
| Patents Act (Cap 221, 1995 Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Queen's Counsel
- Patent Infringement
- Novelty
- Inventive Step
- Legal Profession Act
- Moulding Machine
- Semiconductor Lead Frames
15.2 Keywords
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Queen's Counsel
- Patent Infringement
- Singapore High Court
- Legal Profession Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Ad Hoc Admission | 95 |
| Patents | 80 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Appellate Practice | 10 |
| Compensation Fund | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Intellectual Property
- Civil Litigation