Re Wordsworth: Ad Hoc Admission for Lesotho's Investor-State Arbitration Challenge

The Singapore High Court heard an application by Samuel Sherratt Wordsworth, Queen’s Counsel of England, for ad hoc admission to represent the Kingdom of Lesotho in Originating Summons No 492 of 2016, an application to set aside a Partial Award on Jurisdiction and the Merits arising from an investor-state arbitration. The court allowed the application, finding that Mr. Wordsworth possessed special qualifications and experience relevant to the public international law issues at the core of the case, and that there was a need for his expertise given the limited pool of local counsel with comparable experience. The court allowed the application with no order as to costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application allowed with no order as to costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court allows ad hoc admission of Queen's Counsel Samuel Sherratt Wordsworth to represent Lesotho in setting aside an arbitral award.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralOtherGovernment AgencyApplication SupportedNeutral
Jocelyn Teo of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Jeyendran Jeyapal of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Elaine Liew of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Law Society of SingaporeOtherStatutory BoardApplication OpposedLost
Josias Van ZylRespondentIndividualApplication OpposedLost
Kingdom of LesothoApplicantGovernment AgencyApplication AllowedWon
Samuel Sherratt WordsworthApplicantIndividualApplication AllowedWon
Swissborough Diamond Mines (Pty) LimitedRespondentCorporationApplication OpposedLost
The Josias Van Zyl Family TrustRespondentTrustApplication OpposedLost
The Burmilla TrustRespondentTrustApplication OpposedLost
Matsoku Diamonds (Pty) LimitedRespondentCorporationApplication OpposedLost
Motete Diamonds (Pty) LimitedRespondentCorporationApplication OpposedLost
Orange Diamonds (Pty) LimitedRespondentCorporationApplication OpposedLost
Patiseng Diamonds (Pty) LtdRespondentCorporationApplication OpposedLost
Rampai Diamonds (Pty) LimitedRespondentCorporationApplication OpposedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Steven ChongJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jocelyn TeoAttorney-General’s Chambers
Jeyendran JeyapalAttorney-General’s Chambers
Elaine LiewAttorney-General’s Chambers
Harjean KaurAdvocatus Law LLP
Christopher Anand DanielAdvocatus Law LLP
Smitha MenonWongPartnership LLP
Oh Sheng LoongWongPartnership LLP
Tara RadakrishnanWongPartnership LLP
Paul TanRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Alessa PangRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. Samuel Sherratt Wordsworth applied for ad hoc admission to represent Lesotho.
  2. The application concerned Lesotho's challenge to an arbitral award.
  3. The arbitral tribunal found Lesotho in breach of its obligations.
  4. The dispute arose from the alleged expropriation of mining leases.
  5. The arbitration was conducted in Singapore.
  6. The legal issues involve public international law and treaty interpretation.
  7. Mr. Wordsworth was lead counsel for Lesotho in the arbitration.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Wordsworth, Samuel Sherratt QC, Originating Summons No 643 of 2016, [2016] SGHC 172

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Treaty of the Southern African Development Community signed.
Treaty of the Southern African Development Community in force.
Protocol on the Tribunal in the Southern African Development Community signed.
Protocol on the Tribunal in the Southern African Development Community in force.
Protocol on Finance and Investment signed.
Protocol on Finance and Investment in force.
Notice of Arbitration served on Lesotho.
Arbitration hearing took place.
Arbitral tribunal rendered the Award.
Affidavit of Tan Beng Hwee Paul filed.
Arbitral tribunal issued an interpretation award.
Affidavit of Samuel Sherratt Wordsworth QC filed.
High Court hearing.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Counsel
    • Outcome: The court allowed the application for ad hoc admission.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Special qualifications and experience
      • Reasonableness of admission
      • Need for foreign counsel
  2. Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
    • Outcome: The court did not rule on the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in this judgment, as the judgment concerned the ad hoc admission of counsel.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of investment under SADC Investment Protocol
      • Retroactive application of SADC Investment Protocol
      • Exhaustion of local remedies

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Ad Hoc Admission to practice as an advocate and solicitor

9. Cause of Actions

  • Application for Ad Hoc Admission

10. Practice Areas

  • Ad Hoc Admissions
  • International Arbitration
  • Investor-State Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Legal Services
  • Mining

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Beloff Michael Jacob QCCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 424SingaporeCited for the observation that the suitability of ad hoc admissions is now to be viewed through the prism of “need”.
Re Andrews Geraldine Mary QCUnknownYes[2013] 1 SLR 872SingaporeCited as the only application allowed since the introduction of the 2012 Amendment.
Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QCUnknownYes[2013] 3 SLR 66SingaporeCited as an application that was not allowed because the “special reason” requirement for the ring-fenced areas of legal practice was not satisfied.
Re Lord Goldsmith Peter Henry PC QCUnknownYes[2013] 4 SLR 921SingaporeCited as an application that was not allowed because the “special reason” requirement for the ring-fenced areas of legal practice was not satisfied.
Re Fordham, Michael QCUnknownYes[2015] 1 SLR 272SingaporeCited as an application that was not allowed because the “special reason” requirement for the ring-fenced areas of legal practice was not satisfied.
Re Rogers, Heather QCUnknownYes[2015] 4 SLR 1064SingaporeCited as an application that was disallowed because the issues were “uniquely local”.
AQZ v ARAUnknownYes[2015] 2 SLR 972SingaporeCited for the principle that jurisdictional challenges are determined by the court on a de novo standard of review.
PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) v Astro Nusantara International BV and others and another appealUnknownYes[2014] 1 SLR 372SingaporeCited for the principle that jurisdictional challenges are determined by the court on a de novo standard of review.
Re David Joseph QCUnknownYes[2012] 1 SLR 791SingaporeCited as the last occasion on which foreign QCs were admitted to appear in an arbitration-related matter.
Re Beloff Michael Jacob QCUnknownYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 943SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no rule against a party being represented by both an SC and a QC.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 3 of 2012)Singapore
s 15 of the Legal Profession ActSingapore
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Ad hoc admission
  • Queen’s Counsel
  • Public international law
  • Investor-state arbitration
  • SADC Treaty
  • SADC Tribunal Protocol
  • SADC Investment Protocol
  • Jurisdictional challenge
  • Partial Award
  • Special qualifications
  • Reasonableness
  • Need

15.2 Keywords

  • Ad hoc admission
  • Foreign counsel
  • International arbitration
  • Investor-state dispute
  • Lesotho
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Ad Hoc Admission95
International Law80
Investment Disputes75
International Arbitration70
International Arbitration Law70
Arbitration60
Private International Law50
Inherent Power of the Court30
Civil Procedure30
Administrative Law20

16. Subjects

  • Legal Profession
  • International Law
  • Arbitration