Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing: Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel in Libel Suits

In the High Court of Singapore, Tay Yong Kwang J dismissed an application by Review Publishing Company Limited and Hugo Restall, defendants in libel suits brought by Mr. Lee Hsien Loong and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, to admit Mr. Gavin James Millar QC as their leading counsel. The court found that the libel suits did not raise sufficiently difficult or complex issues to warrant the admission of a Queen's Counsel, and that local counsel were capable of handling the case. The application was dismissed with costs to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs.

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 in libel suits was dismissed, as the case did not present sufficiently complex issues.

1.7 Decision Date

16 October 2007

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General	Other	Government Agency	Neutral	Neutral	Jeffrey Chan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Leonard Goh of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Law Society of Singapore	Other	Statutory Board	Neutral	Neutral	Andrew Ong of Rajah and Tann
Lee Hsien Loong	Plaintiff	Individual	Won	Won	Jaikanth Shankar of Drew & Napier LLC Davinder Singh of Drew & Napier LLC
Millar Gavin James QC	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Peter Cuthbert Low of Peter Low Partnership
Review Publishing Company Limited	Defendant	Corporation	Application dismissed	Lost	Peter Cuthbert Low of Peter Low Partnership
Hugo Restall	Defendant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Peter Cuthbert Low of Peter Low Partnership
Lee Kuan Yew	Plaintiff	Individual	Won	Won	Jaikanth Shankar of Drew & Napier LLC Davinder Singh of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tay Yong Kwang	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Jeffrey Chan	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Leonard Goh	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Andrew Ong	Rajah and Tann
Jaikanth Shankar	Drew & Napier LLC
Davinder Singh	Drew & Napier LLC
Peter Cuthbert Low	Peter Low Partnership

4. Facts

Mr. Gavin James Millar QC applied to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor in Singapore.
The application was to represent Review Publishing Company Limited and Mr. Hugo Restall in libel suits.
The libel suits were commenced by Mr. Lee Hsien Loong and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew.
The defendants relied on the Reynolds privilege and neutral reportage defences.
The court found that the libel suits did not raise sufficiently difficult or complex issues.
The court also found that local counsel were capable of handling the case.
The application was dismissed with costs to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs.

5. Formal Citations

Re Millar Gavin James QC, OS 1197/2007, [2007] SGHC 178

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2006-07-01	Article "Singapore’s ‘Martyr’, Chee Soon Juan" published in the July/August issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review.
2006-01-01	Libel suits Suit No. 539 of 2006 and Suit No. 540 of 2006 commenced.
2007-01-01	First application by Mr Gavin James Millar QC to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore.
2007-01-01	Tan Lee Meng J dismissed the first application and refused admission.
2007-07-01	The defendants’ appeal against Tan J’s decision not to admit the QC was heard and dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
2007-08-10	Defendants filed their Defences.
2007-08-27	Defendants amended their Defences.
2007-08-30	Plaintiffs filed their applications to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of as being defamatory and for summary judgment.
2007-10-17	Application dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

Ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel
- Outcome: Application dismissed.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Difficulty and complexity of issues
  - Circumstances warranting admission
  - Special qualifications or experience
Defamation
- Outcome: Issues to be determined in the libel suits.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Meaning of defamatory words
  - Defences of justification
  - Fair comment
  - Qualified privilege
  - Reynolds privilege
  - Neutral reportage

8. Remedies Sought

Ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel

9. Cause of Actions

Defamation

10. Practice Areas

Ad Hoc Admission
Libel Litigation

11. Industries

Publishing

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Re Millar Gavin James QC	High Court	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR 349	Singapore	Details the first application by the QC to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore in order to be the leading counsel for Review Publishing Company Limited.
Re Godfrey Gerald QC	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR 306	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there was no requirement that the requisite difficulty and complexity must pertain to the law as opposed to the facts.
Re Platts-Mills Mark Fortescue QC	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR 510	Singapore	Cited for the principle that where there was a dearth of local expertise in a given area, even a moderately difficult or complex case may warrant the admission of QC.
Price Arthur Leolin v AG & Ors	High Court	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 972	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court may also consider admitting QC in a case where, on grounds of self-interest or acquaintanceship, in view of the size of our jurisdiction and population, no local counsel ought to or is willing to take the case.
De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium	European Court of Human Rights	Yes	(1997) 25 HRR 1	Belgium	Cited in support of the proposition that the principle of equality of arms was a fundamental part of any fair trial guarantee.
Steel and Morris v United Kingdom	European Court of Human Rights	Yes	(2005) 41 EHRR 22	United Kingdom	Cited in support of the proposition that the principle of equality of arms was a fundamental part of any fair trial guarantee.
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others	House of Lords	Yes	[2001] 2 AC 127	United Kingdom	Cited for the Reynolds privilege defence.
Jameel and others v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl	House of Lords	Yes	[2006] 3 WLR 642	United Kingdom	Cited for the restatement and clarification of the principles upon which the Reynolds privilege defence is based.
Roberts v Gable	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] EWCA Civ 721	England and Wales	Cited for the neutral reportage defence.
Lee Hsien Loong v The Singapore Democratic Party and others	High Court	Yes	[2006] SGHC 220	Singapore	Cited as a case where the Reynolds defence was rejected on the basis that it did not represent the law in Singapore.
Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR 306	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the circumstances of this case do not call for the court’s discretion to be exercised in the defendants’ favour.
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin and anor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR 337	Singapore	Cited as the last time that QC was admitted in a defamation matter.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Queen's Counsel
Ad hoc admission
Libel suits
Defamation
Reynolds privilege
Neutral reportage
Equality of arms
Legal Profession Act

15.2 Keywords

Queen's Counsel
Ad hoc admission
Libel
Defamation
Singapore
Legal Profession Act

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Legal Profession Act	90
Libel, Slander and Defamation	85
Ad Hoc Admission	70
Civil Practice	40
Appellate Practice	30

16. Subjects

Legal Profession
Defamation
Civil Procedure