Re Michael Fordham QC: Ad Hoc Admission & Judicial Review of Law Society Decision
Mr. Michael Fordham QC applied for ad hoc admission to the High Court of Singapore to represent Mr. Deepak Sharma in a judicial review application against the Law Society of Singapore's Review Committee's decision regarding Mr. Sharma's complaint against two solicitors. The High Court, presided over by Steven Chong J, dismissed the application, finding that Mr. Fordham did not meet the requirements for ad hoc admission under the Legal Profession Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for ad hoc admission to represent Mr. Sharma in judicial review against the Law Society's Review Committee decision. Application dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Successful Resistance of Application | Won | Terence Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck SC of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Successful Resistance of Application | Won | |
| Michael Fordham QC | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong J | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Terence Tan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck SC | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Harjean Kaur | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Aw Sze Min | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Christopher Anand Daniel | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Abraham Vergis | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Clive Myint Soe | Providence Law Asia LLC |
4. Facts
- Mr. Sharma filed a complaint against two solicitors, Mr. Yeo SC and Ms. Ho, alleging professional misconduct for seeking excessive costs against his wife, Dr. Lim.
- The Review Committee (RC) wholly dismissed Mr. Sharma’s complaint against Mr. Yeo SC and partially dismissed it against Ms. Ho.
- Mr. Sharma applied for judicial review of the RC’s decision.
- Mr. Fordham QC applied for ad hoc admission to represent Mr. Sharma in the judicial review application.
- Mr. Sharma contacted several local Senior Counsel (SCs) to assist him, but they declined due to potential conflicts of interest.
- The Law Society argued that the issues raised in the judicial review were local in nature and did not require foreign counsel.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Michael Fordham QC, Originating Summons No 595 of 2014, [2014] SGHC 223
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ministry of Health, Singapore lodged a complaint against Dr Lim with the SMC. | |
| Complaints Committee ordered a formal inquiry be held by a Disciplinary Committee. | |
| The First DC issued a notice of inquiry to Dr Lim containing 94 charges of professional misconduct. | |
| Hearing before the First DC commenced. | |
| A three-day hearing was fixed for oral submissions but the First DC recused itself. | |
| The SMC appointed a fresh Disciplinary Committee. | |
| Dr Lim filed OS 1131/2010. | |
| Dr Lim filed OS 1252/2010. | |
| OS 1131/2010 was withdrawn. | |
| Philip Pillai J dismissed the application for a quashing order in OS 1252/2010. | |
| CA 80/2011 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal with costs ordered against Dr Lim. | |
| The SMC’s solicitors sought to recover party-and-party costs against Dr Lim. | |
| Dr Lim’s solicitors offered a counter-proposal to Wong P. | |
| At the taxation hearing, the Assistant Registrar taxed off approximately two-thirds of the total sum claimed in the three bills, allowing the recovery of only $340,000. | |
| Woo Bih Li J heard Wong P's application for a review of the taxation. | |
| Mr Ian Winter QC provided a written opinion. | |
| Mr Sharma made a complaint to the Law Society against Mr Yeo SC and Ms Ho. | |
| The RC conveyed its decision to Mr Sharma. | |
| The Applicant rendered Mr Sharma a written opinion. | |
| Mr Sharma filed Originating Summons No 593 of 2014. | |
| The present application was filed for the Applicant to be admitted to practise as an advocate and solicitor on an ad hoc basis. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for ad hoc admission under s 15 of the Legal Profession Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Special qualifications or experience
- Special reason for admission
- Standing to Complain to Law Society
- Outcome: The court did not make a definitive ruling on whether Mr. Sharma had standing to complain to the Law Society, finding it unnecessary to decide for the purposes of the ad hoc admission application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Requirement to demonstrate sufficient interest
- Floodgate of frivolous complaints
- Reviewability of Review Committee Decisions
- Outcome: The court did not make a definitive ruling on the reviewability of the Review Committee's decisions, finding it unnecessary to decide for the purposes of the ad hoc admission application.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Intention of Parliament to exclude judicial review
- Interpretation of Legal Profession Act
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Judicial Review
- Regulatory Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 900 | Singapore | Cited for the procedural history of the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Lim and to support the interpretation of ethical rules regarding overcharging. |
| Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 131 | Singapore | Cited for the fact that Philip Pillai J granted leave for judicial review. |
| Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 156 | Singapore | Cited for the fact that Philip Pillai J eventually dismissed the application for a quashing order. |
| Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 701 | Singapore | Cited for the fact that the Court of Appeal dismissed Dr Lim’s appeal with costs ordered against her. |
| Re Andrews Geraldine Mary QC | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 872 | Singapore | Cited for discussion on the applicable principles for ad hoc admissions under the current statutory framework. |
| Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 66 | Singapore | Cited for discussion on the applicable principles for ad hoc admissions under the current statutory framework. |
| Re Lord Goldsmith Peter Henry PC QC | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 921 | Singapore | Cited for discussion on the applicable principles for ad hoc admissions under the current statutory framework. |
| Re Beloff Michael Jacob QC | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 849 | Singapore | Cited for discussion on the applicable principles for ad hoc admissions under the current statutory framework. |
| Re Beloff Michael Jacob QC | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 424 | Singapore | Cited for setting out the appropriate analytical framework for approaching ad hoc admission applications. |
| Re Oliver David Keightley Rideal QC | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 961 | Singapore | Cited for the common practice for parties not to object to ad hoc admission applications. |
| Yeap Wai Kong v Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 565 | Singapore | Cited for the approval of the Applicant's textbook on judicial review. |
| Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited for the fact that an arguable case or prima facie case of reasonable suspicion has to be made out at the leave application stage. |
| Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission and another | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 2 AC 147 | United Kingdom | Cited for the proposition that a tribunal’s errors or misdirection of law can indeed form the basis for judicial review. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), O 59 r 19 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), s 15 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act, s 85 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act, s 96 | Singapore |
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed), s 45(1)(d) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Ad hoc admission
- Judicial review
- Review Committee
- Legal Profession Act
- Locus standi
- Professional misconduct
- Senior Counsel
- Special qualifications
- Special reason
- Administrative law
15.2 Keywords
- Ad hoc admission
- Judicial review
- Singapore
- Legal Profession Act
- Review Committee
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Ad Hoc Admission | 95 |
| Legal Profession Act | 80 |
| Administrative Law | 70 |
| Assessment of Legal Costs | 60 |
| Professional Ethics | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
| Civil Litigation | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Judicial Review
- Administrative Law