Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG: Ad Hoc Admission & Legal Representation in Banking Dispute

In Godfrey Gerald, Queen's Counsel v UBS AG and Others, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed an appeal by Mr. Gerald Godfrey QC against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner denying him ad hoc admission to represent Mr. Anthony Wee Soon Kim in a suit against UBS AG. The court found that the case did not involve sufficiently difficult or complex issues to warrant the admission of a QC and that Mr. Wee's own actions contributed to his lack of legal representation. The court also upheld the order for Mr. Wee to pay costs to UBS AG.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against denial of ad hoc admission for QC in a banking dispute. The court dismissed the appeal, citing insufficient complexity and local counsel availability.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralRespondentGovernment AgencyAppeal DismissedNeutral
The Law Society of SingaporeRespondentStatutory BoardAppeal DismissedNeutral
UBS AGRespondentCorporationCosts AwardedWon
Godfrey Gerald, Queen's CounselAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Anthony Wee Soon Kim of Independent Practitioner

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeYes
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Tan Lee MengJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Davinder SinghDrew & Napier LLC
Hri KumarDrew & Napier LLC
Anthony Wee Soon KimIndependent Practitioner

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Wee, a retired lawyer, suffered losses from a Malaysian ringgit transaction.
  2. UBS offered Mr. Wee the 'DFF Strategy' to manage his losses.
  3. Mr. Wee alleged that UBS misrepresented the DFF Strategy to him.
  4. Mr. Wee commenced Suit No. 834 against UBS.
  5. Mr. Godfrey Gerald QC applied for ad hoc admission to represent Mr. Wee.
  6. The judge denied Mr. Godfrey Gerald QC's application.
  7. Mr. Wee appealed against the judge's decision.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Godfrey Gerald, Queen's Counsel v UBS AG and Others, CA 114/2002, [2003] SGCA 16

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Wee's son purchased RM35 million against a US$ loan.
Mr. Wee asked the bank for suggestions on how to manage his losses.
Mr. Wee adopted the 'DFF Strategy'.
Bank converted Mr. Wee’s RM deposits at US$1 to RM4.
Mr. Wee commenced Suit No. 834 against the bank.
Appellant applied for ad hoc admission under s 21 of the Legal Profession Act.
Appellant's counsel informed respondents that Mr. Wee was no longer seeking ad hoc admission for the appellant.
Mr Goh sought ad hoc admission for another QC, Mr Richard de Lacy.
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel
    • Outcome: The court held that the case was not of sufficient difficulty and complexity to warrant the admission of a QC.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1998] 1 SLR 432
  2. Exercise of Judicial Discretion
    • Outcome: The court found no reason to interfere with the judge's exercise of discretion in refusing ad hoc admission.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1992] 2 SLR 175
  3. Award of Costs Against Non-Party
    • Outcome: The court upheld the order for Mr. Wee to pay costs to UBS AG, finding ample grounds for the judge's decision.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1992] 2 SLR 483
      • [2000] 1 SLR 137

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Appeals
  • Costs
  • Admission to the Bar

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QCUnspecifiedYes[1998] 1 SLR 432SingaporeCited for the three-stage test for admission of a Queen's Counsel.
The Vishva ApurvaUnspecifiedYes[1992] 2 SLR 175SingaporeCited for the grounds on which an appellate court will interfere with an exercise of discretion.
Re Fenwick QCUnspecifiedYes[1995] 3 SLR 89SingaporeCited to support that the requisite difficulty and complexity need not pertain to the law as opposed to the facts.
Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC (No 2)UnspecifiedYes[1998] 1 SLR 440SingaporeCited to support that the requisite difficulty and complexity need not pertain to the law as opposed to the facts.
Re Howe Martin Russell Thomas QCUnspecifiedYes[2001] 3 SLR 575SingaporeCited for the terms ‘difficulty’ and ‘complexity’ being cited both conjunctively as well as disjunctively.
Re Oliver David Keightley Rideal QCUnspecifiedYes[1992] 2 SLR 400SingaporeCited to support that novelty of a case is not prima facie evidence of complexity.
Ri Jong Son v Development Bank of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 64SingaporeCited as a local case law that the High Court can build upon in determining the merits of Suit No. 834.
Shenyin Wangou-APS Management Pte Ltd (formerly known as Shanghai International-APS Management Pte Ltd) & Anor v Commerzbank (South East Asia) LtdUnspecifiedYes[2001] 4 SLR 275SingaporeCited as a local case law that the High Court can build upon in determining the merits of Suit No. 834.
Price Arthur Leolin v A-G & OrsUnspecifiedYes[1992] 2 SLR 972SingaporeCited for balancing the individual justice of each case against the need to foster a strong and independent Bar.
Re Beloff Michael Jacob QCHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR 782SingaporeCited to support the principle of a level playing field.
Re Gyles QCUnspecifiedYes[1996] 2 SLR 695SingaporeCited to support that there would be little justification in admitting a QC if local counsel are ready and able to act.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong & AnorUnspecifiedYes[1997] 3 SLR 489SingaporeCited to support that Mr. Wee must show that the judge committed a prima facie case of error in order to successfully impugn the costs order.
Re Reid James Robert QCUnspecifiedYes[1997] 2 SLR 482SingaporeCited to support that it is not unprecedented for the judge to order the applicant to pay costs to the respondents.
Re Gore Daniel Richard QCUnspecifiedYes[1997] 2 SLR 478SingaporeCited to support that it is not unprecedented for the judge to order the applicant to pay costs to the respondents.
The Karting Club of Singapore v David Mak & Ors (Wee Soon Kim Anthony, Intervener)UnspecifiedYes[1992] 2 SLR 483SingaporeCited for the power of the courts to make an order of costs against a non-party.
Chin Yoke Choong Bobby & Anor v Hong Lam Marine Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2000] 1 SLR 137SingaporeCited for the court having the jurisdiction and discretion to order, in circumstances where it was just to do so, a non-party to be personally liable for costs of court proceedings.
Re Richard de Lacy QCHigh CourtYes[2003] SGHC 55SingaporeCited as the judge rejected Mr de Lacy’s application because his application failed the first two stages of the three-stage test

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5)
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Ad Hoc Admission
  • Queen's Counsel
  • DFF Strategy
  • Malaysian Ringgit
  • Banking Advice
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Foreign Exchange Contracts
  • Derivatives
  • Forward Contracts
  • Spot Rates
  • Loss Limiting Schemes

15.2 Keywords

  • ad hoc admission
  • Queen's Counsel
  • banking dispute
  • legal representation
  • Singapore
  • appeal dismissed

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Ad Hoc Admission80
Civil Procedure75
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility60
Banking Law50
Administrative Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Legal Profession
  • Banking
  • Financial Law