De Lacy Richard QC: Ad Hoc Admission & Costs in Legal Profession Act Application
The High Court of Singapore dismissed an application to admit Richard de Lacy QC to practice as an advocate and solicitor for Anthony Wee in his suit against UBS AG. The court, presided over by Justice Tay Yong Kwang, found that the case was not sufficiently complex to warrant the admission of a QC and that Anthony Wee's conduct regarding legal representation did not justify the court's discretion in his favor. Anthony Wee was ordered to pay costs of $5,000 to UBS AG.
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 Richard de Lacy QC to represent Anthony Wee in a suit against UBS AG was dismissed. The court ordered Anthony Wee to pay costs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Attorney-General’s Chambers | Respondent | Government Agency | Neutral | Neutral | Wilson Hue of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| UBS AG | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Costs Awarded | Won | |
| Anthony Wee Soon Kim | Applicant, Plaintiff | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Laurence Goh Eng Yau | Laurence Goh Eng Yau & Co |
| Wilson Hue | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Davinder Singh | Drew & Napier |
| Hri Kumar | Drew & Napier |
| Mark Goh Aik Leng | Goh Aik Leng & Partners |
4. Facts
- Anthony Wee sought to admit Richard de Lacy QC to represent him in a suit against UBS AG.
- A previous application to admit Gerald Godfrey QC was dismissed.
- Anthony Wee had discharged several lawyers during the proceedings.
- The Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore opposed the application.
- The court found that the case was not sufficiently complex to warrant the admission of QC.
- Anthony Wee's conduct regarding legal representation did not justify the court's discretion in his favor.
5. Formal Citations
- Re De Lacy Richard QC, OM 4/2003, [2003] SGHC 55
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| High Court Suit No. 834 of 2001 filed | |
| Originating Motion No. 22 of 2002 filed | |
| First application heard | |
| Grounds of decision dated in Originating Motion No. 22 of 2002 | |
| Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2002 dismissed by the Court of Appeal | |
| Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2002 heard at the same time as Civil Appeal No. 81 of 2002 | |
| Anthony Wee's letter stating Mark Goh Aik Leng was out of the country | |
| Originating Motion scheduled to be heard | |
| Decision Date | |
| Appeal scheduled to be heard by the Court of Appeal | |
| UBS filed an affidavit | |
| UBS filed an affidavit | |
| UBS filed an affidavit | |
| UBS filed an affidavit | |
| UBS filed an affidavit | |
| Judgment delivered in Civil Appeal No. 75 of 2002 |
7. Legal Issues
- 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 Queen's Counsel.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Difficulty and complexity of the case
- Availability and ability of local counsel
- Qualifications and experience of the Queen's Counsel
- Costs
- Outcome: The court ordered Anthony Wee to pay UBS AG costs of $5,000.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Payment of costs by non-party
- Principles of awarding costs
8. Remedies Sought
- Admission of Queen's Counsel
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Legal Ethics
11. Industries
- 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 in section 21 Legal Profession Act. |
| Re Beloff Michael Jacob QC | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 782 | Singapore | Cited regarding the second-stage test for admission of Queen's Counsel. |
| Re Price Arthur Leolin | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 766 | Singapore | Cited regarding re-arguing the first and second stages of the test for admission. |
| Re Lee Chu Ming Martin QC and another application | High Court | Yes | [2002] 4 SLR 929 | Singapore | Cited regarding issue estoppel in making subsequent applications. |
| Re William Henric Nicholas QC | High Court | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR 296 | Singapore | Cited to support the view that Section 21 Legal Profession Act contemplates an application by a QC and not the litigants in the case in question. |
| Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC (No. 2) | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited regarding the second-stage test for admission of Queen's Counsel. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court |
| Legal Profession (Fees for Ad Hoc Admission) 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
- Difficulty and complexity
- Local counsel
- Judicial discretion
- Issue estoppel
- Costs
15.2 Keywords
- Queen's Counsel
- ad hoc admission
- costs
- Singapore
- High Court
- Legal Profession Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Ad Hoc Admission | 80 |
| Costs | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 30 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Civil Procedure
- Costs