Re Beloff Michael Jacob QC: Ad Hoc Admission, Legal Profession Act, Schemes of Arrangement
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard four appeals against the High Court's decision to allow the ad hoc admission of Mr. Michael Jacob Beloff QC to practice as an advocate and solicitor in Singapore, pursuant to Section 15 of the Legal Profession Act, to represent nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd in setting aside a prior Court of Appeal judgment. The Court of Appeal, delivered by Sundaresh Menon CJ, allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's decision, finding that the requirements for ad hoc admission were not met.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeals allowed and the Judge’s decision to admit Mr Beloff on an ad hoc basis to represent nTan in the Setting-Aside Summonses was set aside.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal heard appeals against the High Court's decision to allow Mr. Beloff's ad hoc admission to represent nTan in setting aside a judgment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beloff Michael Jacob QC | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Lost | Edwin Tong, Kenneth Lim, Peh Aik Hin, Tan Kai Liang |
| Attorney-General | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Aurill Kam, Cheryl Siew, Alexander Sim, Jurena Chan |
| Banks | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Lee Eng Beng, Low Poh Ling, Raelene Su-Lin Pereira, Jonathan Lee Zhongwei |
| Law Society of Singapore | Appellant | Association | Appeal Allowed | Won | Christopher Anand Daniel, Harjean Kaur |
| TT International Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Chan Hock Keng, Ong Pei Chin, Lawrence Foo |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Aurill Kam | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Cheryl Siew | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Alexander Sim | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Jurena Chan | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Lee Eng Beng | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Low Poh Ling | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Raelene Su-Lin Pereira | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Jonathan Lee Zhongwei | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Christopher Anand Daniel | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Harjean Kaur | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Chan Hock Keng | WongPartnership LLP |
| Ong Pei Chin | WongPartnership LLP |
| Lawrence Foo | WongPartnership LLP |
| Edwin Tong | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Kenneth Lim | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Peh Aik Hin | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Tan Kai Liang | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- nTan sought to set aside a Court of Appeal judgment.
- nTan applied to have Mr. Beloff admitted on an ad hoc basis to represent it.
- The application was opposed by the Attorney-General, the Law Society, the Banks, and the Company.
- The High Court allowed the ad hoc admission of Mr. Beloff.
- The Attorney-General, the Law Society, the Banks, and the Company appealed the High Court's decision.
- The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's decision.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Beloff Michael Jacob QC, Civil Appeals Nos 68, 69, 70 and 71 of 2013, [2014] SGCA 25
- Re Beloff Michael Jacob QC, , [2013] 4 SLR 849
- The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd and another appeal, , [2012] 4 SLR 1182
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Company incorporated in Singapore | |
| Company listed on the Stock Exchange of Singapore | |
| nTan appointed as independent financial advisor | |
| High Court granted Company liberty to call a meeting of creditors | |
| Letter from nTan to the Company stipulated fees payable | |
| Meeting of the Scheme Creditors held | |
| Scheme Manager announced the voting results | |
| Scheme approved by Judith Prakash J in the High Court | |
| Arguments heard in the Scheme Appeals | |
| Court of Appeal set aside the approval of the Scheme | |
| Further meeting of the Scheme Creditors held | |
| Further hearings took place before the Court of Appeal | |
| Court of Appeal issued brief grounds of decision | |
| Letter addressed to the Supreme Court Registry from Rajah & Tann LLP | |
| A&G wrote to the Registry setting out the Scheme Manager’s proposal | |
| Registry wrote to R&T, A&G and Wong conveying the Court of Appeal’s directions | |
| R&T, A&G and Wong sent their replies to the Registry | |
| Registry wrote to the parties informing them of the Court of Appeal’s determination | |
| R&T and Wong submitted their responses by way of letter, while A&G filed a set of submissions | |
| The correspondence relating to the VAF rested | |
| Court of Appeal released the CA Judgment | |
| nTan filed Summons No 5682 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No 44 of 2010 | |
| nTan applied to have Mr Beloff admitted on an ad hoc basis | |
| nTan filed Summons No 6520 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No 47 of 2010 | |
| Law Society website listed 40 SCs with practising certificates | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Counsel
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in exercising its discretion to admit Mr. Beloff on an ad hoc basis.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Special qualifications or experience
- Necessity for foreign counsel
- Availability of local counsel
- Reasonableness of admission
- Court's Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court considered the issue of its own jurisdiction in the context of a scheme of arrangement.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court considered whether the prior judgment was made contrary to the rules of natural justice.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Setting Aside Judgment
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Ad Hoc Admission
- Setting Aside Judgment
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Insolvency
- Appellate Practice
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 1182 | Singapore | Underlying judgment that nTan sought to set aside due to lack of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice. |
| The “Abidin Daver” | N/A | Yes | [1984] Lloyd’s LR 339 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should not interfere with a judge’s discretion simply because they would have reached a different conclusion. |
| Bellenden (formerly Satterthwaite) v Satterthwaite | N/A | Yes | [1948] 1 All ER 343 | N/A | Cited for the principle that there is a generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible in the exercise of judicial discretion. |
| The “Vishva Apurva” | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 912 | N/A | Cited for the test on when an appellate court can legitimately interfere with the exercise of discretion below. |
| Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG and others | N/A | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 306 | N/A | Cited for applying the test in The “Vishva Apurva” in the context of an admission application for a QC. |
| Re Beloff Michael Jacob QC | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 849 | Singapore | The High Court decision that was appealed against in the current case. |
| Re Andrews Geraldine Mary QC | N/A | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 872 | N/A | Cited for a comprehensive history of the relevant statutory provisions regarding ad hoc admissions. |
| Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC | N/A | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 66 | N/A | Cited for the opinion that the ring-fenced areas of law all had “critical domestic content” and “features peculiar to Singapore”. |
| Re Lord Goldsmith Peter Henry PC QC | N/A | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 921 | N/A | Cited for the suggestion that the ring-fenced areas of law had perhaps been singled out because in those areas, local law has diverged and become distinct from its English roots. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 998 | N/A | Cited as a case where a similar issue of breach of natural justice was raised and settled. |
| The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Reliance National Asia Re Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 121 | N/A | Cited to support the point that Singapore's regime governing scheme of arrangements is unique in that it is a hybrid of the English and Australian provisions. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011 (S 244/2011) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Foreign Counsel
- Special Qualifications
- Necessity
- Schemes of Arrangement
- Legal Profession Act
- Senior Counsel
- Notification Matters
- Setting-Aside Summonses
15.2 Keywords
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Foreign Counsel
- Legal Profession Act
- Schemes of Arrangement
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Civil Procedure
- Insolvency Law
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Civil Procedure
- Insolvency Law
- Schemes of Arrangement