Re Andrews Geraldine Mary QC: Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Counsel in Singapore

In Re Andrews Geraldine Mary QC, the High Court of Singapore considered an application for the ad hoc admission of Ms. Geraldine Mary Andrews QC to represent Ng Chee Weng in Suit 453/2009 against Bryan Lim Jit Ming and Teo Soo Geok Josephine. The application was opposed by the Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore. The court, led by V K Rajah JA, allowed the application, holding that the new ad hoc admission scheme requires a holistic assessment of relevant factors, not just the complexity of the case. The court emphasized the need to balance nurturing the local Bar with ensuring litigants have access to adequate legal representation.

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 foreign counsel to represent a party in a commercial suit. The court allowed the application, emphasizing a holistic approach.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Andrews Geraldine Mary QCApplicantIndividualApplication AllowedWonNarayanan Vijya Kumar
Ng Chee WengPlaintiffIndividualRepresentation SecuredNeutralNarayanan Vijya Kumar
Bryan Lim Jit MingDefendantIndividualApplication OpposedNeutralCavinder Bull, Woo Shu Yan, Lin Shumin
Teo Soo Geok JosephineDefendantIndividualApplication OpposedNeutralCavinder Bull, Woo Shu Yan, Lin Shumin
Attorney-GeneralRespondentGovernment AgencyApplication OpposedLostJeffrey Chan Wah Teck, Dominic Zou Wen Xi, Cheryl Siew May Yee
Law Society of SingaporeRespondentAssociationApplication OpposedLostChristopher Anand s/o Daniel, Alvin Chen, Harjean Kaur

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Narayanan Vijya KumarVijay & Co
Cavinder BullDrew & Napier LLC
Woo Shu YanDrew & Napier LLC
Lin ShuminDrew & Napier LLC
Jeffrey Chan Wah TeckAttorney-General's Chambers
Dominic Zou Wen XiAttorney-General's Chambers
Cheryl Siew May YeeAttorney-General's Chambers
Christopher Anand s/o DanielAdvocatus Law LLP
Alvin ChenAdvocatus Law LLP
Harjean KaurAdvocatus Law LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff claimed dividends from Defendants, alleging they held shares in trust for him.
  2. Plaintiff commenced Suit 453/2009 against the Defendants.
  3. Defendants applied to strike out paragraphs in Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.
  4. Plaintiff filed an appeal against the decision of the High Court judge allowing the Defendants’ striking-out applications.
  5. Plaintiff applied for leave to amend his Statement of Claim again.
  6. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment allowing Plaintiff’s appeal.
  7. Mr. Vijya filed the present application for the ad hoc admission of the Applicant.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Andrews Geraldine Mary QC, Originating Summons No 589 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 229
  2. Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and Another, , [2010] SGHC 35
  3. Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and another, , [2012] 1 SLR 457

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff commenced Suit 453/2009
Defendants applied to strike out paragraphs in Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim
High Court struck out paragraphs in Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim
Plaintiff filed appeal in Civil Appeal No 93 of 2009
Plaintiff discharged Mr. Low and instructed Mr. Vijya
Hearing of Civil Appeal No 93 of 2009
Court of Appeal dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal in Civil Appeal No 93 of 2009
Court of Appeal issued an addendum
Plaintiff applied for leave to amend his Statement of Claim again
High Court affirmed the decision to deny Plaintiff leave to amend
Civil Appeal No 190 of 2010 was heard
Court of Appeal delivered its judgment allowing Plaintiff’s appeal
Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim (Amendment No 3) dated
Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2012 took effect
Mr. Vijya filed the present application for the ad hoc admission of the Applicant
Mr Vijya filed supplementary affidavit
Decision Date
Tentative trial dates fixed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Counsel
    • Outcome: The court allowed the application, clarifying the principles for ad hoc admission under the amended Legal Profession Act.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of Legal Profession Act
      • Exercise of Court's Discretion
  2. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court did not rule on the breach of contract issue itself, as it was not before the court in this application.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Repudiation of Settlement Agreement
      • Enforceability of Oral Agreement
  3. Trust Arrangement
    • Outcome: The court did not rule on the trust arrangement issue itself, as it was not before the court in this application.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Beneficial Ownership of Shares
      • Dividend Entitlement

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Counsel
  2. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Account of Dividends

10. Practice Areas

  • Ad Hoc Admission
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and AnotherHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 35SingaporeCited for striking out paragraphs in the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim.
Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 457SingaporeCited for allowing the Plaintiff's appeal and holding that the Plaintiff was not precluded from pleading inconsistent causes of action.
Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and anotherHigh CourtYes[2011] SGHC 120SingaporeCited for affirming the AR’s decision to deny the Plaintiff leave to make the Second Proposed Amendment.
Re Joseph David QCHigh CourtYes[2012] 1 SLR 791SingaporeCited for the three-stage test in determining an application for ad hoc admission under s 15(1) of the current LPA.
Price Arthur Leolin v Attorney-General and othersCourt of AppealYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 113SingaporeCited for the key objective of the amendment was plainly to facilitate the development of a strong core of good advocates at the local Bar by restricting access to foreign senior counsel to the more difficult and complex cases.
Re Phillips Nicholas Addison QCUnknownYes[1979–1980] SLR(R) 111SingaporeCited as a case where the courts considered the difficulty of the underlying issues in the case was a statutorily relevant and important factor in deciding whether to exercise their discretion to grant an application for ad hoc admission.
Re Oliver David Keightley Rideal QCUnknownYes[1992] 1 SLR(R) 961SingaporeCited for the primary consideration for admission of a Queen’s Counsel was whether he had special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case.
Public Prosecutor v Low Kok HengUnknownYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 183SingaporeCited for the courts must prefer an interpretation which supports the intended purpose of a provision over an interpretation that does not.
Chief Assessor and another v First DCS Pte LtdUnknownYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 724SingaporeCited for the courts must prefer an interpretation which supports the intended purpose of a provision over an interpretation that does not.
Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical CouncilCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 701SingaporeCited for the dichotomy between the mandatory effect and the directory effect of words (used in statutory provisions) which are ex facie mandatory (eg, the word “shall”) has been abandoned by the English courts in favour of the practical approach of determining Parliament’s intention in each case.
Da Costa v The QueenPrivy CouncilYes[1990] 2 AC 389JamaicaCited for where the statutory provision in question uses the word “may”, it can mean “shall”.
Lombard Commodities Ltd v Alami Vegetable Oil Products Sdn BhdFederal CourtYes[2010] 2 MLJ 23MalaysiaCited for the use of [the] word ‘may’ in a statutory provision would not by itself show that the provision is directory in nature.
Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG and othersCourt of AppealYes[2003] 2 SLR(R) 306SingaporeCited for the idea of equality of arms was not relevant per se.
Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QCUnknownYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 412SingaporeCited for it would also be relevant if any adverse findings at the trial would be likely to impugn the integrity of the litigants and thereby cause significant harm to their business interests.
Public Prosecutor v Kwong Kok HingCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 684SingaporeCited for the appellate review of sentencing decisions by lower courts.
JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises LtdCourt of AppealYes[2011] 1 SLR 391SingaporeCited for the appellate review of decisions on whether to grant a stay of proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens.
In the Matter of Section 21 of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) and in the Matter of an Application by Mr David Edward Michael Young, Queen’s Counsel of EnglandHigh CourtYes[1991] SGHC 177SingaporeCited as an illustrative case where “[e]ven before the amendments [viz, the 1991 Amendments] the Court insisted on the complexity of the case as a condition to admission of [foreign senior] counsel”.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession ActSingapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 15Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed) s 21(1A)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Ad Hoc Admission
  • Foreign Senior Counsel
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Queen's Counsel
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Trust
  • Statement of Claim
  • Senior Counsel
  • Equality of Arms
  • Special Qualifications
  • Sufficient Difficulty and Complexity

15.2 Keywords

  • Ad Hoc Admission
  • Foreign Counsel
  • Singapore
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Commercial Litigation

16. Subjects

  • Legal Profession
  • Civil Procedure
  • Commercial Litigation

17. Areas of Law

  • Legal Profession
  • Civil Procedure
  • Commercial Law