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

Mr. Gavin James Millar, a Queen's Counsel, applied for ad hoc admission to the Supreme Court of Singapore to represent Review Publishing Company Limited and Mr. Hugo Restall in libel suits brought by Mr. Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister, and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the Minister Mentor. The High Court dismissed the application, finding that the issues in both the jurisdiction appeals and the libel suits were not sufficiently difficult or complex to warrant the admission of a Queen's Counsel, and that local counsel were available and able to handle the cases.

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 due to lack of sufficient difficulty/complexity.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lee Hsien LoongRespondentIndividualApplication DismissedNeutral
Review Publishing Company LimitedRespondentCorporationApplication DismissedNeutral
Hugo RestallRespondentIndividualApplication DismissedNeutral
Lee Kuan YewRespondentIndividualApplication DismissedNeutral
Gavin James MillarApplicantIndividualApplication DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jaikanth ShankarDrew & Napier LLC
Davinder SinghDrew & Napier LLC
Peter Cuthbert LowPeter Low Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Gavin James Millar, a Queen’s Counsel, sought ad hoc admission to represent Review Publishing and Mr. Hugo Restall in libel suits.
  2. The libel suits were instituted by Mr. Lee Hsien Loong and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew regarding an article in the Far Eastern Economic Review.
  3. The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court, but their appeal was dismissed.
  4. The Law Society supported Mr. Millar’s application, but did not identify any specific difficult or complex issues.
  5. The plaintiffs argued that the issues in the case could be handled by local lawyers.
  6. The defendants argued that the principle of equality of arms required them to have a QC to represent them.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Millar Gavin James QC, OS 621/2007, [2007] SGHC 85

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Article published in the July/August issue of the FEER.
Libel suits instituted by Prime Minister Lee and Minister Mentor Lee.
Leave granted to serve Writs out of jurisdiction.
Writs, Statements of Claim, and Orders of Court served on the defendants in Hong Kong.
Defendants instituted proceedings to set aside the service of the Writs.
Defendants’ appeal against AR Quek’s decision was dismissed by Sundaresh Menon JC.
Proceedings initiated for the admission of Mr. Millar on an ad hoc basis.
Judgment reserved.

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 Queen's Counsel.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Difficulty and complexity of the case
      • Special qualifications or experience of the applicant
      • Circumstances of the case
  2. Jurisdiction of the High Court
    • Outcome: The court found that the service of the Writs outside jurisdiction was not an abuse of the process of the court and that the plaintiffs complied with the Treaty.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Service of Writs out of jurisdiction
      • Abuse of process
      • Compliance with the Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters
  3. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court did not make a ruling on the defamation issues, as the application for ad hoc admission was dismissed.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Meaning of the words complained of
      • Justification
      • Fair comment
      • Public interest reporting defence
      • Qualified privilege

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Defamation
  • Ad Hoc Admission

11. Industries

  • Publishing

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Oliver David Keightley Rideal QCHigh CourtYes[1992] 2 SLR 400SingaporeCited for the object of section 21 of the Legal Profession Act, which is to lay the foundation for the development of a strong local bar by the imposition of more stringent conditions for the admission of Queen’s Counsel.
Price Arthur Leolin v Attorney GeneralCourt of AppealYes[1992] 2 SLR 972SingaporeCited for the object of section 21 of the Legal Profession Act, which is to help the development of a strong core of good advocates at the local bar by restricting access to Queen’s Counsel only in the more difficult and complex cases.
Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC (No 2)Court of AppealYes[1998] 1 SLR 440SingaporeCited for the three-stage test for admission under section 21(1) of the Legal Profession Act.
Sundaresh Menon JCHigh CourtNo[2007] SGHC 24SingaporeCited for the central question raised in the appeals is whether the plaintiffs have complied with the rules and procedures necessary to invoke this court’s jurisdiction.
Re Reid James Robert QCHigh CourtYes[1997] 2 SLR 482SingaporeCited for the principle that the explanation in the affidavit in support of the application for the admission of a QC had merely listed the issues in general and vague terms, stated at [11] that such an explanation was of no assistance to the court.
Re Nicholas William Henric QC and another applicationHigh CourtYes[2002] 2 SLR 296SingaporeCited for the principle that the affidavits in support of the two applications had merely asserted that the cases were extremely complex defamation matters without explaining how they were so, pointed out at [39] that the issues listed were “general in nature and case law and legal writing on such issues must abound here and in other common law jurisdictions”.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and OrsHigh CourtNo[2007] 1 SLR 675SingaporeCited for the principle that the Reynolds position on “responsible journalism” should not be followed in Singapore.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan YewCourt of AppealYes[1992] 2 SLR 310SingaporeCited for the principle that the terms of art 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed) differ materially from that of art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Re Platts-Mills Mark Fortescue QCHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR 510SingaporeCited for the principle that it will only be “in the most exceptional circumstances that a case is so difficult and complex that no local counsel in Singapore is able and willing to take the case”.
Re Flint Charles John Raffles QCHigh CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR 276SingaporeCited for the principle that the local Bar has matured and that there is now a body of SC, potential SC and an impressive group of young advocates and solicitors with excellent academic credentials.
Godfrey Gerald, Queen’s Counsel v UBS AG and othersCourt of AppealYes[2003] 2 SLR 306SingaporeCited for the principle of equality of arms does not support the argument that it would not be fair if his clients did not have a QC to represent them.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
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
  • Jurisdiction appeals
  • Equality of arms
  • Difficulty and complexity
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Public interest reporting defence
  • Reynolds defence

15.2 Keywords

  • Queen's Counsel
  • ad hoc admission
  • libel
  • Singapore
  • Legal Profession Act

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Profession Act90
Ad Hoc Admission80
Cannabis Law75
Jurisdiction60
Equality of Arms50

16. Subjects

  • Legal Profession
  • Defamation
  • Civil Procedure