Re Flint: Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel for Mitco - Legal Profession Act
In Re Flint, the High Court of Singapore dismissed an application by Mr. Charles John Raffles Flint QC for ad hoc admission to represent Malaysian International Trading Corporation Sdn Bhd (Mitco) in a suit involving allegations of a massive fraud. The court, presided over by Justice Lai Kew Chai, found that local counsel was adequately capable of handling the case, which involved claims against multiple defendants for conspiracy to defraud, breach of trust, and inducement to breach of contract. The court balanced the need to foster a strong local bar against the individual justice of the case and determined that Mitco's interests would be adequately served by local counsel.
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 represent Mitco in a fraud case was dismissed. The court found local counsel capable of handling the case.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charles John Raffles Flint QC | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Malaysian International Trading Corporation Sdn Bhd | Other | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | Vinodh Coomaraswamy, David Chan |
| Law Society | Respondent | Association | Neutral | Neutral | Cho Sooi Yoon |
| Attorney General | Respondent | Government Agency | Neutral | Neutral | Eric Chin |
| Interamerica Asia Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | Bernadette Balan, Kueh Ping Yang |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Kew Chai | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Vinodh Coomaraswamy | Shook Lin & Bok |
| David Chan | Shook Lin & Bok |
| Cho Sooi Yoon | Law Society |
| Eric Chin | Attorney General’s Chambers |
| Bernadette Balan | Haridass Ho & Partners |
| Kueh Ping Yang | Haridass Ho & Partners |
4. Facts
- Mr. Flint sought ad hoc admission to represent Mitco in a suit involving allegations of a massive fraud.
- Mitco claimed damages for conspiracy to defraud, equitable compensation, and damages for dishonest assistance of breach of trust.
- Mitco alleged that its Managing Director caused it to enter into loss-making contracts with IAG.
- Mitco claimed that IAG was a shell company without substantial assets or commercial means.
- Mitco asserted that Azalan and Najib caused Mitco to enter into 137 spot sale contracts for the supply of palm olein to IAG.
- Mitco obtained search and seizure orders and injunctions against the defendants.
- Mitco's local counsel successfully obtained orders for certain defendants to repatriate their US$ deposits overseas to Singapore.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Flint Charles John Raffles QC, OM 31/2000, [2001] SGHC 47
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Originating Motion filed | |
| Application heard by the High Court | |
| Notice of Appeal filed | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for ad hoc admission, finding that local counsel was capable of handling the case.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Difficulty and complexity of the case
- Circumstances warranting admission
- Suitability for admission
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Equitable Compensation
- Personal and Proprietary Remedies
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy to Defraud
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Dishonest Assistance
10. Practice Areas
- Admissions
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Commodities Trading
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 object of the amendment to s 21(1) of the Legal Profession Act to lay the foundation for the development of a strong local bar. |
| Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC (No 2) | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited for the three-stage test for admission under s 21(1) of the Legal Profession Act. |
| Price Arthur Leolin v A-G & Ors | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 972 | Singapore | Cited for the three-stage test for admission under s 21(1) of the Act and the court's discretion. |
| Price Arthur Leolin v A-G | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 972 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's consideration of exercising discretion once satisfied that the case is difficult and complex enough to warrant the assistance of a Queen's Counsel. |
| Royal Brunei Airlines v Philip Tan Kok Ming | Privy Council | Yes | [1995] 2 AC 378 | United Kingdom | Cited in relation to proprietary and evidentiary tracing. |
| Banque Nationale de Paris v Hew Keong Chan Gary | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 300 | Singapore | Cited in relation to proprietary and evidentiary tracing. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Queen's Counsel
- Legal Profession Act
- Palm Olein
- Fraud
- Breach of Trust
- Interlocutory Applications
- Anton Piller Order
- Letters of Credit
- Tracing of Assets
15.2 Keywords
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Queen's Counsel
- Legal Profession Act
- Fraud
- Singapore High Court
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Admissions
- Civil Litigation
- Fraud
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Civil Procedure