Re Joseph David QC: Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel for Complex International Arbitration Dispute

In Re Joseph David QC, the High Court of Singapore considered an application by Mr. David Joseph QC for ad hoc admission as an advocate and solicitor to represent the Astro Group plaintiffs in ongoing proceedings related to a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) arbitration against PT First Media TBK and others. The Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore did not object. The court, presided over by V K Rajah JA, allowed the application, finding the legal issues sufficiently complex and difficult to warrant the admission of a Queen's Counsel, particularly concerning the enforcement of arbitral awards and the application of the Dallah principle.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application Allowed

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 to represent plaintiffs in a complex international arbitration dispute. The court allowed the application.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralOtherGovernment AgencyNeutralNeutral
Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Law Society of SingaporeOtherStatutory BoardNeutralNeutral
PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK)RespondentCorporationApplication DeniedLost
Joseph David QCApplicantIndividualApplication AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jeffrey Chan Wah TeckAttorney-General’s Chambers
Matthew SawLee & Lee
Edmund Jerome KronenburgBraddell Brothers LLP
Lye Hui XianBraddell Brothers LLP
Daniel TanWong Partnership LLP
Chou Sean YuWong Partnership LLP
Melvin LumWong Partnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Applicant sought ad hoc admission to represent the Plaintiffs in proceedings related to a SIAC arbitration.
  2. The Respondent objected, arguing the proceedings were not sufficiently complex.
  3. The Attorney-General and Law Society did not object, agreeing on the complexity of the legal issues.
  4. The arbitration involved a failed joint venture for satellite-delivered pay television services in Indonesia.
  5. The Tribunal granted five awards in favor of the Plaintiffs, totaling significant sums in multiple currencies.
  6. The Respondent challenged the enforcement of the awards, alleging invalid service and lack of an arbitration agreement.
  7. The Indonesian Supreme Court refused to grant an exequatur.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Joseph David QC, Originating Summons No 853 of 2011, [2011] SGHC 262

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Application in OS No 621 of 2007 filed to admit Mr Gavin James Millar QC was dismissed
SIAC Arbitration No 62 of 2008 commenced
Preliminary Award issued in SIAC Arbitration No 62 of 2008
Respondent signed the Memorandum of Issues
Award issued in SIAC Arbitration No 62 of 2008
Award issued in SIAC Arbitration No 62 of 2008
Award issued in SIAC Arbitration No 62 of 2008
Award issued in SIAC Arbitration No 62 of 2008
Leave to enforce the Awards as judgments of the High Court of Singapore were granted by Orders of Court in OS 807
Leave to enforce the Awards as judgments of the High Court of Singapore were granted by Orders of Court in OS 913
Judgments entered in terms of the Awards
Respondent filed SUM No 1911 of 2011 and SUM No 1912 of 2011 to set aside the 24 March 2011 Judgments
Assistant Registrar decided that service of the Enforcement Orders was not valid
Plaintiffs filed RA 278 and RA 279, appealing against the AR’s orders in SUM 1911 and SUM 1912 respectively
Respondent filed SUM 4064 and SUM 4065 to set aside the Enforcement Orders
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Ad Hoc Admission of Queen's Counsel
    • Outcome: The court allowed the application for ad hoc admission.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
    • Outcome: The court considered the legal issues arising in SUM 4064 and SUM 4065, which related to the setting aside of the Enforcement Orders.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Validity of Service
    • Outcome: The court considered whether service was in fact effected in Indonesia and whether service was legally valid in accordance with Indonesian law.
    • Category: Procedural
  4. Application of Dallah
    • Outcome: The court considered the application of Dallah, which, being a decision of the UK Supreme Court, merits careful consideration.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Principle of Double-Severability
    • Outcome: The court considered the principle of double-severability.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Admission as Advocate and Solicitor
  2. Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

9. Cause of Actions

  • Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

10. Practice Areas

  • Ad Hoc Admission
  • International Arbitration Enforcement

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QCCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 412SingaporeCited for the three-stage test applied in determining an application under s 15(1) of the LPA.
Re Platts-Mills Mark Fortescue QCCourt of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 510SingaporeCited for the three-stage test applied in determining an application under s 15(1) of the LPA and the balancing of interests in admitting a Queen's Counsel.
Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG and othersCourt of AppealYes[2003] 2 SLR(R) 306SingaporeCited for the test of 'sufficient difficulty and complexity' being conjunctive and not disjunctive.
Price Arthur Leolin v Attorney-General and othersCourt of AppealYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 113SingaporeCited for the principle that difficulty and complexity is not limited to questions of law.
Re Flint Charles John Raffles QCHigh CourtYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 433SingaporeCited for the balancing of interests between fostering a strong local Bar and the individual justice of each case.
Re Oliver David Keightley Rideal QCHigh CourtYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 961SingaporeCited for the original purpose of the 1991 amendments to the LPA.
Re Littlemore Stuart QCHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 198SingaporeCited for the essential qualities required of an applicant for admission.
Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v Ministry of Religious Affairs of the Government of PakistanEnglish Supreme CourtYes[2011] AC 763England and WalesCited for the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz and the enforceability of arbitration awards.
Syska v Vivendi Universal SA & OrsNot AvailableYes[2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 636England and WalesCited for the principle of 'double-severability'.
Re Sher Jules QCHigh CourtYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited for the level of complexity required to satisfy the statutory threshold.
Re Gyles QCHigh CourtYes[1996] 1 SLR(R) 871SingaporeCited for the need for the applicant's knowledge to illuminate the true shades of the law and fact.
Re Beloff Michael Jacob QCHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 943SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no general rule that prohibits a litigant from engaging both a Queen’s Counsel and a local Senior Counsel to argue his case if the circumstances of the case justify such admission
Evergreat Construction Co Pte Ltd v Presscrete Engineering Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 634SingaporeCited as an authority for various legal propositions or views
The “Duden”High CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 984SingaporeCited as an authority for various legal propositions or views
Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] 1 SLR(R) 23SingaporeCited as an authority for various legal propositions or views
Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 936SingaporeCited as an authority for various legal propositions or views
CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBKCourt of AppealYes[2011] SGCA 33SingaporeCited as an authority for various legal propositions or views

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession ActSingapore
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on International Commercial ArbitrationNot Available

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Ad Hoc Admission
  • Queen's Counsel
  • International Arbitration
  • SIAC Arbitration
  • Enforcement Orders
  • Kompetenz-Kompetenz
  • Double-Severability
  • Dallah
  • Exequatur

15.2 Keywords

  • Ad Hoc Admission
  • Queen's Counsel
  • International Arbitration
  • Singapore
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
International Arbitration95
International Arbitration Act90
Arbitration90
Legal Profession Act70
Jurisdiction60
Civil Procedure40
Appeal30
Contract Law30
Commercial Law30
Administrative Law20
Corporate Law20
Corporate Litigation20
Admissibility of evidence20
Estoppel20
Deeds of Undertaking10

16. Subjects

  • Legal Profession
  • International Arbitration
  • Civil Procedure