Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan: Application for Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel in Defamation Suit
The High Court of Singapore heard two originating motions by Nicholas William Henric QC and Martin Lee Chu Ming QC, seeking ad hoc admission as advocates and solicitors under Section 21 of the Legal Profession Act to represent Dr. Chee Soon Juan in defamation suits brought by Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and Mr. Goh Chok Tong. The court dismissed the applications, finding that the cases were not sufficiently complex to warrant admission of Queen's Counsel and that Dr. Chee failed to demonstrate the necessity of engaging foreign counsel. The court also addressed procedural issues regarding the application process and payment of fees.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Applications dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Applications to admit two Queen's Counsel for a defamation suit were dismissed due to insufficient complexity and failure to demonstrate necessity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Neutral | Neutral | Leong Wing Tuck of Attorney-General Jeffrey Chan of Attorney-General |
| Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Neutral | Neutral | Yang Lih Shyng of Law Society of Singapore |
| Chee Soon Juan | Defendant | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | Chee Soon Juan of Independent Practitioner |
| Lee Kuan Yew | Plaintiff | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Goh Chok Tong | Plaintiff | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Nicholas William Henric QC | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Martin Lee Chu Ming QC | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Leong Wing Tuck | Attorney-General |
| Jeffrey Chan | Attorney-General |
| Yang Lih Shyng | Law Society of Singapore |
| Chee Soon Juan | Independent Practitioner |
| Siraj Omar | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Davinder Singh | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Hri Kumar | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Two Queen's Counsel applied for ad hoc admission to represent Dr. Chee Soon Juan in defamation suits.
- The defamation suits were brought by Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and Mr. Goh Chok Tong.
- Dr. Chee Soon Juan argued the cases were complex and required specialized expertise.
- The Attorney General and Law Society were served with the applications.
- A previous application to admit another QC for the same purpose was dismissed.
- The court found the cases were not sufficiently complex to warrant admission.
- Dr. Chee Soon Juan failed to pay the prescribed fees for the applications.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Nicholas William Henric QC and another application, OM 600021/2002, 600023/2002, [2002] SGHC 74
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Martin Lee Chu Ming QC entered in Her Majesty`s patent as Queen`s Counsel. | |
| William Henric Nicholas QC was appointed one of Her Majesty`s Counsel. | |
| Financial assistance package for Indonesia and a Singapore-Indonesia Bilateral Trade Finance Guarantee Scheme were disclosed to Singapore Parliament. | |
| Discussions in the Singapore Parliament regarding financial assistance package for Indonesia were reported extensively in the local press. | |
| Martin Lee Chu Ming QC won a landmark decision from the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong. | |
| Lee Kuan Yew was returned unopposed as a Member of Parliament in the 2001 General Elections. | |
| Chee Soon Juan spoke and published defamatory words concerning Lee Kuan Yew at an election rally. | |
| Chee Soon Juan spoke and published defamatory words concerning Goh Chok Tong at Hong Kah West hawker centre and Nee Soon Central. | |
| Defamatory words spoken by Chee Soon Juan were republished in the Business Times. | |
| Goh Chok Tong issued a letter of demand to Chee Soon Juan. | |
| Lee Kuan Yew issued a letter of demand to Chee Soon Juan. | |
| Chee Soon Juan read out the apology at a SDP rally at Jurong East. | |
| Chee Soon Juan published the apology in the Straits Times and the Today newspapers. | |
| Defamatory words were republished in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age newspapers. | |
| An application under O 14 of the Rules of Court was taken out by Lee Kuan Yew. | |
| Chee Soon Juan was granted leave to issue a third party notice against the Business Times, Straits Times, The New Paper, Channel News Asia, Television Corporation of Singapore and Today. | |
| Applications to admit two Queen`s Counsel were dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel
- Outcome: The court dismissed the applications for ad hoc admission, finding that the cases were not sufficiently complex and the circumstances did not warrant the admission of Queen's Counsel.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficient difficulty and complexity of the case
- Circumstances warranting court's discretion
- Necessity of instructing solicitor
- Number of Queen's Counsel admitted for one case
- Payment of prescribed fee
8. Remedies Sought
- Admission to practice as an advocate and solicitor
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Ad Hoc Admission
10. Practice Areas
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Stuart Littlemore QC | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR 296 | Singapore | Cited as a previous application to admit a QC for the same case, which was dismissed. |
| Re Howe Martin Russell Thomas QC | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 575 | Singapore | Cited for the summary of principles regarding the admission of Queen's Counsel. |
| Re Oliver David Keightley Rideal QC | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 400 | Singapore | Cited for the objective of the 1991 amendment to s 21 of the Legal Profession Act. |
| Price Arthur Leolin v A-G | Unknown | 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. |
| Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC (No 2) | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited for the clarification of the two stages in the application for admission of Queen's Counsel. |
| Re Flint Charles John Raffles QC | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 276 | Singapore | Cited for the point that the local Bar has matured and is acquitting itself commendably. |
| Cheng and Lam vs. Tse | Court of Final Appeal | Yes | Cheng and Lam vs. Tse , Final Appeal No. 12 of 2000 (Civil), on appeal from CACV No. 170 of 1998 | Hong Kong | Cited as a landmark decision from the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong on 13 November 2000, setting a precedent in the common law system for the refinement of the definition of defamation |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Queen's Counsel
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Defamation
- Legal Profession Act
- Difficulty and Complexity
- Instructing Solicitor
- Prescribed Fee
15.2 Keywords
- Queen's Counsel
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Defamation
- Singapore
- Legal Profession Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Ad Hoc Admission | 90 |
| Defamation | 70 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 60 |
| Jurisdiction | 30 |
| Evidence Law | 20 |
| Affidavits | 20 |
| Commercial Disputes | 10 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Civil Procedure