Harish Salve v BPW: Ad Hoc Admission for Foreign Counsel in ICC Arbitration Dispute
Harish Salve, an Indian Senior Advocate, appealed the High Court's decision to dismiss his applications for ad hoc admission to argue Indian law issues in Singapore proceedings related to setting aside and enforcing an ICC arbitration award between BPW and certain shareholders of P Limited. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JA, and Tay Yong Kwang JA, allowed the appeals, finding that Salve possessed the necessary special qualifications and experience and that his admission would assist the court in resolving complex issues of Indian law.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding ad hoc admission of foreign counsel to argue Indian law in a Singapore arbitration case. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Other | Government Agency | Neutral | Neutral | Jeyendran Jeyapal of Attorney-General’s Chambers Elaine Liew of Attorney-General’s Chambers May Ng of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Law Society of Singapore | Defendant | Statutory Board | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Harish Salve | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| BPW | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Harish Salve, an Indian Senior Advocate, sought ad hoc admission to argue Indian law issues.
- The underlying dispute involved an ICC arbitration award related to a share purchase agreement.
- The arbitration award was in favor of BPW, with a dissenting opinion from one arbitrator.
- The sellers challenged the award in Singapore, raising issues of Indian law and public policy.
- The High Court dismissed Salve's application for ad hoc admission.
- The Court of Appeal found that Salve possessed special qualifications and experience.
- The Court of Appeal considered the complexity of Indian law issues in the case.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Harish Salve and another appeal, , [2018] SGCA 06
- Harish Salve v BPW, Civil Appeal No 49 of 2017, Civil Appeal No 49 of 2017
- Harish Salve v BPW, Civil Appeal No 50 of 2017, Civil Appeal No 50 of 2017
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Share purchase and share subscription agreement entered into. | |
| Arbitration proceedings commenced. | |
| Arbitration award delivered. | |
| Leave to enforce the award granted. | |
| Applications to set aside the leave order and award filed. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Grounds of decision delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Counsel
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the appellant met the requirements for ad hoc admission and allowed the appeals.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 3 SLR 424
- Damages for Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court considered the issues related to the measure of damages permissible under s 19 of the Indian Contract Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- AIR 1973 Guj 34
- Civil Appeal No 2652 of 1972
- [1997] AC 254
- Contractual Capacity of Minors
- Outcome: The court considered the law and public policy of India in relation to the contractual capacity of minors and their liability for contracts made on their behalf.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Ad hoc admission to practice as an advocate and solicitor
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Beloff Michael Jacob QC | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 424 | Singapore | Cited for the principles on appellate intervention regarding judicial discretion. |
| Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc | N/A | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491 | Singapore | Cited regarding the method of proving foreign law in Singapore courts. |
| R C Thakkar v Gujarat Housing Board | Gujarat High Court | No | AIR 1973 Guj 34 | India | Cited in the award for the measure of damages recoverable under s 19 of the Indian Contract Act, but was later overruled. |
| Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Citibank N A | House of Lords | No | [1997] AC 254 | England | Cited in the award regarding damages to put the respondent back in the monetary position it would have been in had the wrong not been committed. |
| R C Thakkar v Gujarat Housing Board | Indian Supreme Court | No | Civil Appeal No 2652 of 1972 | India | Cited as overruling the R C Thakkar High Court Decision. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Ad Hoc Admissions) Notification 2012 (S 132/2012) |
| O 110 r 25(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| O 110 r 28(2)(e) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 15 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Indian Contract Act 1872 (Act No 9 of 1872) | India |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Ad hoc admission
- Foreign counsel
- Indian Contract Act
- ICC arbitration
- Special qualifications
- Notification Matters
- Damages Issues
- Minors’ Issues
- Public policy
- Senior Counsel
15.2 Keywords
- Ad hoc admission
- Foreign counsel
- Singapore
- Indian law
- Arbitration
- Legal Profession Act
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Admissions
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure