Wee v UBS AG: Application for Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel Denied
In Re Godfrey Gerald QC, the High Court of Singapore heard an originating motion by Goh Aik Leng & Partners to admit Gerald Godfrey, Queen's Counsel, to represent Anthony Wee Soon Kim in a suit against UBS AG. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Tay Yong Kwang, dismissed the motion, finding that the case did not involve sufficiently complex legal or factual issues to warrant the admission of a Queen's Counsel and that the applicant lacked special qualifications for the case.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Motion Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to admit Gerald Godfrey QC ad hoc to represent Anthony Wee in a suit against UBS AG was denied due to insufficient complexity and lack of special qualifications.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthony Wee Soon Kim | Plaintiff, Applicant | Individual | Motion Dismissed | Lost | Mark Goh Aik Leng |
| UBS AG | Defendant | Corporation | Costs Awarded | Won | Davinder Singh, Hri Kumar |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mark Goh Aik Leng | Goh Aik Leng & Partners |
| Davinder Singh | Drew & Napier |
| Hri Kumar | Drew & Napier |
| Laurence Goh | Law Society |
| Pang Khang Chau | Attorney-General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- Anthony Wee, a 72-year-old retired lawyer with health issues, sued UBS AG for misrepresentation regarding the Dynamic Floor Fund Strategy.
- Wee discharged his initial lawyers due to disagreements and engaged Goh Aik Leng & Partners.
- Wee wanted to conduct his case as counsel, assisted by Mohan Singh, but the judge ruled against it.
- Goh Aik Leng & Partners filed and withdrew notices of appointment as solicitors.
- Wee's health condition led to the adjournment of trial dates.
- An originating motion was filed to admit Gerald Godfrey QC to represent Wee.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Godfrey Gerald QC, OM 22/2002, [2002] SGHC 260
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Anthony Wee's son received a tip about the Malaysian Ringgit and purchased RM35 million against a US$ loan. | |
| Anthony Wee asked the bank for suggestions on how to manage his losses. | |
| Anthony Wee unwound the Dynamic Floor Fund Strategy. | |
| The bank converted Anthony Wee’s RM deposits at US$1 to RM4. | |
| Anthony Wee commenced action against the bank. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Goh Aik Leng & Partners filed and served the Notice of Appointment of Solicitors to act for Anthony Wee. | |
| Parties appeared before the trial judge for the hearing of an interlocutory application. | |
| Goh Aik Leng & Partners filed a second Notice of Appointment of Solicitors. | |
| Trial resumed. | |
| Mark Goh attended on behalf of Anthony Wee. | |
| Mark Goh produced a medical certificate stating that Anthony Wee was unfit to attend court for 60 days. | |
| Goh Aik Leng & Partners faxed the second Notice of Appointment of Solicitors to the bank’s solicitors. | |
| Goh Aik Leng & Partners wrote to the Registrar of the Supreme Court on behalf of Anthony Wee to request further arguments on the interlocutory application. | |
| Anthony Wee sent a response to the Registrar. | |
| Goh Aik Leng & Partners wrote to the Registrar. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Admission of Queen's Counsel
- Outcome: The court held that the case did not meet the requirements for admission of Queen's Counsel.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Order to admit Gerald Godfrey, Queen’s Counsel to practise as an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
- Legal
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 432 | Singapore | Cited for the three-stage test for admission of Queen's Counsel. |
| Re Beloff Michael Jacob | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 782 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that the ability and availability of local counsel is not an absolute bar to the admission of a Queen's Counsel. |
| Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC (No 2) | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited regarding the balancing exercise the court is required to engage in. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Queen's Counsel
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Legal Profession Act
- Litigant in Person
- Dynamic Floor Fund Strategy
15.2 Keywords
- Queen's Counsel
- ad hoc admission
- Singapore High Court
- Legal Profession Act
- UBS AG
- Anthony Wee
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Banking Law
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Civil Procedure