Kassimatis KC v Attorney-General: Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Counsel & Legal Profession Act Interpretation
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals by Theodoros Kassimatis KC and Edward Fitzgerald KC against a High Court decision that they could not address the court on their applications for ad hoc admission to practice as advocates and solicitors. The Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore objected to their admission. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants could not address the court on the appeals. The court considered the interpretation of the Legal Profession Act 1966.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal against the Preliminary Objection dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal addresses whether foreign counsel can argue their ad hoc admission. Appeals dismissed, barring foreign counsel from addressing the court.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed | Other | Individual | |||
| Lingkesvaran Rajendaren | Other | Individual | |||
| Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Appeal against the Preliminary Objection dismissed | Won | |
| Theodoros Kassimatis KC | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal against the Preliminary Objection dismissed | Lost | |
| Edward Fitzgerald KC | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal against the Preliminary Objection dismissed | Lost | |
| Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal against the Preliminary Objection dismissed | Won | Hay Hung Chun of Attorney-General’s Chambers Theong Li Han of Attorney-General’s Chambers Poh Hui Jing Claire of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Saminathan Selvaraju | Other | Individual | |||
| Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah | Other | Individual |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Senior Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Christopher Anand s/o Daniel | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Yeo Yi Ling Eileen | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Saadhvika Jayanth | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Hay Hung Chun | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Theong Li Han | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Poh Hui Jing Claire | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- Theodoros Kassimatis KC and Edward Fitzgerald KC applied for ad hoc admission to practice in Singapore.
- The Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore objected to their admission.
- The High Court dismissed the Appellants’ applications.
- A preliminary issue arose as to whether the Appellants were entitled to address the court on the applications.
- The Judge held that they were not entitled to do so.
- The Appellants appealed against the Judge’s decision on the Preliminary Objection.
5. Formal Citations
- Kassimatis, Theodoros KC v Attorney-General and another and another appeal, , [2024] SGCA 36
- Theodoros Kassimatis KC v Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore, Civil Appeal No 16 of 2024, Civil Appeal No 16 of 2024
- Edward Fitzgerald KC v Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore, Civil Appeal No 17 of 2024, Civil Appeal No 17 of 2024
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Edward Fitzgerald KC appointed Queen’s Counsel | |
| Theodoros Kassimatis KC appointed Queen’s Counsel | |
| Designations changed to King’s Counsel upon the death of Queen Elizabeth II | |
| Claimants filed various civil applications | |
| Claimants contended that ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA are incompatible with the presumption of innocence | |
| Claimants filed CA/SUM 16/2023 for the full Court of Appeal to reconsider the matter | |
| Theodoros Kassimatis KC filed HC/OA 696/2023 for ad hoc admission | |
| Edward Fitzgerald KC filed HC/OA 811/2023 for ad hoc admission | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued | |
| Oral hearing scheduled for appeals |
7. Legal Issues
- Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Counsel
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that foreign counsel seeking ad hoc admission cannot address the court on their own applications.
- Category: Procedural
- Interpretation of Legal Profession Act
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal interpreted ss 15, 29, 32, 33 and 34 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 in relation to ad hoc admissions.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Ad Hoc Admission to the Singapore Bar
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Ad Hoc Admission
10. Practice Areas
- Ad Hoc Admissions
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kassimatis, Theodoros KC v Attorney-General and another and another matter | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 24 | Singapore | The Judge dismissed the Appellants’ applications for ad hoc admission. |
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-General | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 291 | Singapore | Cited as the case where the Claimants contended that ss 18(1) and 18(2) of the MDA are incompatible with the presumption of innocence and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. |
| Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 1437 | Singapore | Cited as the case where SUM 8 was dismissed by a single judge sitting in the Court of Appeal. |
| Re Nicholas William Henric QC and another application | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 751 | Singapore | The Judge referred to this case and held that the extract in Re Henric established that while a self-represented person could address the court in certain contexts, this did not extend to allowing an applicant for ad hoc admission to address the court on his or her own application. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statutory interpretation requires a construction of the relevant provision in its context, in light of the statute as a whole, and, as far as possible, to make sense of all the provisions in a coherent way. |
| Tan Seng Kee v Attorney-General and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1347 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statutory interpretation requires a construction of the relevant provision in its context, in light of the statute as a whole, and, as far as possible, to make sense of all the provisions in a coherent way. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Shanmugam Manohar | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 731 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in construing a statute, a court strives to give meaning to each provision because Parliament does not legislate in vain. |
| Turner (East Asia) Pte Ltd v Builders Federal (Hong Kong) Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [1988] 1 SLR(R) 281 | Singapore | The High Court had the occasion to consider the proper interpretation of ss 29 and 30 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1985 Rev Ed) (the “1985 LPA”), which is in pari materia to ss 32 and 33 of the LPA. |
| Choo Cheng Tong Wilfred v Phua Swee Khiang and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 154 | Singapore | One who offers advice on legal matters or who offers to draft a legal submission for reward will likely be caught by s 33 regardless of whether that is done in the context of practising as an advocate and solicitor or in a context where it is made clear that the service is being provided by one who is not an advocate and solicitor. |
| Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 411 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the client in the underlying matter may be allowed to argue the application for ad hoc admission and any appeal therefrom in person even though he or she is technically a third party to that application. |
| Price Arthur Leolin v Attorney-General and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 113 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs for an ad hoc admission application are treated as costs of the “interlocutory chapters in the main action”. |
| Re Rogers, Heather QC | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1064 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs for an ad hoc admission application are treated as costs of the “interlocutory chapters in the main action”. |
| Re Wordsworth, Samuel Sherratt QC | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 179 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there are other questions to be considered, such as the necessity for the applicant to be admitted having regard to the matters specified in para 3 of the Legal Profession (Ad Hoc Admissions) Notification 2012 (S 132/2012). |
| Re BSL | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 207 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there are other questions to be considered, such as the necessity for the applicant to be admitted having regard to the matters specified in para 3 of the Legal Profession (Ad Hoc Admissions) Notification 2012 (S 132/2012). |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2024, r 47(1) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act 1966, s 15 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act 1966, s 32(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act 1966, s 33(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act 1966, s 34(1)(e) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Foreign Counsel
- Legal Profession Act
- Self-Represented Person
- Practising as an Advocate and Solicitor
15.2 Keywords
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Foreign Counsel
- Singapore
- Legal Profession Act
- Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Ad Hoc Admission | 100 |
| Litigation | 40 |
| Civil Litigation | 30 |
| Criminal Law | 15 |
| Administrative Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Civil Procedure