Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan: Application for Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel

In Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Lai Kew Chai, dismissed an originating motion filed on 11 January 2002 by Mr. Stuart Littlemore QC seeking ad hoc admission to represent Dr. Chee Soon Juan in two defamation suits. The Attorney General and The Law Society of Singapore opposed the application based on Mr. Littlemore's previous disparaging remarks about the Singapore Judiciary. The court concluded that Mr. Littlemore's contemptuous and disrespectful conduct made him unsuitable to assist the court.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 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 Dr. Chee Soon Juan in defamation suits was dismissed due to disparaging remarks about the Singapore Judiciary.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chee Soon JuanDefendant, ApplicantIndividualLostLost
Chee Soon Juan of Independent Practitioner
Lee Kuan YewPlaintiffIndividualNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Kew ChaiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chee Soon JuanIndependent Practitioner
Siraj OmarDrew & Napier
Davinder SinghDrew & Napier
Hri KumarDrew & Napier

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Stuart Littlemore QC sought ad hoc admission to represent Dr. Chee in defamation suits.
  2. The Attorney General and The Law Society opposed the application.
  3. Mr. Littlemore had previously disparaged the Singapore Judiciary.
  4. Mr. Littlemore was an observer for the International Commission of Jurists in 1997.
  5. Mr. Littlemore attacked the Singapore Judiciary in an interview and an article.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan, OM 600002/2002, [2002] SGHC 17

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Littlemore became a Queen’s Counsel
Mr. Littlemore was in Singapore as an observer for the International Commission of Jurists
The International Commission of Jurists released a report
Australian Broadcasting Corporation broadcasted an interview with Mr. Littlemore
Mr. Littlemore’s article was published in the Sydney Morning Herald
Originating motion filed by Mr. Stuart Littlemore
Motion heard by the court
Application dismissed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for ad hoc admission.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Admission to the Bar
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC (No 2)N/AYes[1998] 1 SLR 440SingaporeCited for setting out the requirements of Section 21 of the Legal Profession Act for ad hoc admission of Queen’s Counsel.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Ad hoc admission
  • Queen’s Counsel
  • Defamation suits
  • Singapore Judiciary
  • Disparagement
  • Legal Profession Act

15.2 Keywords

  • Legal Profession
  • Queen's Counsel
  • Singapore
  • Defamation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Profession Act95
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility90
Ad Hoc Admission90
Defamation Law75
Jurisdiction20
Banking Law10
Constitutional Law10
Contract Law5

16. Subjects

  • Legal Profession
  • Civil Procedure