Kassimatis KC v Attorney-General: Ad Hoc Admission & Legal Profession Act

The General Division of the High Court heard applications by Theodoros Kassimatis KC and Edward Fitzgerald KC for ad hoc admission to the Supreme Court of Singapore to represent Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed, Saminathan Selvaraju, Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah and Lingkesvaran Rajendaren in Court of Appeal matters. The Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore were the respondents. Woo Bih Li JAD dismissed the applications, finding that while one applicant met the special qualifications requirement, neither demonstrated a 'special reason' for admission, particularly given the availability of local counsel and the lack of merit in the underlying cases.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Applications dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Applications by Theodoros Kassimatis KC and Edward Fitzgerald KC for ad hoc admission to Singapore Supreme Court were dismissed due to lack of special reason.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Jumaat bin Mohamed SayedOtherIndividualOtherNeutral
Lingkesvaran RajendarenOtherIndividualOtherNeutral
Law Society of SingaporeRespondentStatutory BoardJudgment for RespondentWon
Theodoros Kassimatis KCApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Edward Fitzgerald KCApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Attorney-General of the Republic of SingaporeRespondentGovernment AgencyJudgment for RespondentWon
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 SelvarajuOtherIndividualOtherNeutral
Datchinamurthy a/l KataiahOtherIndividualOtherNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Christopher Anand s/o DanielAdvocatus Law LLP
Yeo Yi Ling EileenAdvocatus Law LLP
Saadhvika JayanthAdvocatus Law LLP
Hay Hung ChunAttorney-General’s Chambers
Theong Li HanAttorney-General’s Chambers
Poh Hui Jing ClaireAttorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

  1. Theodoros Kassimatis KC and Edward Fitzgerald KC applied for ad hoc admission to the Supreme Court of Singapore.
  2. The applications were to represent Jumaat, Saminathan, Datchinamurthy and Lingkesvaran in CA 2 and SUM 16.
  3. The Attorney-General and the Law Society of Singapore were the respondents.
  4. The applicants were King's Counsel from England and Wales.
  5. The Claimants were convicted of drug offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act and sentenced to death.
  6. The Claimants filed OA 480 seeking declarations regarding the presumptions in the MDA.
  7. OA 480 was dismissed by the High Court.
  8. The Claimants appealed the decision in CA 2, which was later deemed withdrawn.
  9. The Claimants filed SUM 8 for CA 2 to be reinstated, which was dismissed.
  10. The Claimants filed SUM 16 for the full court of the Court of Appeal to set aside the decision of Chong JCA.
  11. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the applicants were not entitled to address the court.
  12. The court upheld the preliminary objection.
  13. The court found that Mr. Fitzgerald KC met all the s 15(1) requirements, but Mr. Kassimatis KC did not.
  14. The court found that there was no special reason to admit the applicants.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Kassimatis, Theodoros KC v Attorney-General and another and another matter, Originating Application Nos 696 and 811 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 24

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Preliminary Objection upheld.
Hearing on the Applications.
Jumaat convicted of trafficking in diamorphine.
Jumaat's conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Saminathan convicted of trafficking in diamorphine.
Court of Appeal upheld Saminathan's conviction.
Datchinamurthy convicted of trafficking in diamorphine.
Court of Appeal upheld Datchinamurthy's conviction.
Court of Appeal dismissed Datchinamurthy's review application.
Lingkesvaran convicted of trafficking in diamorphine.
Court of Appeal upheld Lingkesvaran's conviction.
Jumaat filed HC/OS 825/2021.
Jumaat filed HC/OS 1025/2021.
AG's application to strike out OS 1025 granted.
HC dismissed OS 825.
Claimants filed HC/OC 166/2022.
AG's application to strike out OC 166 granted.
Court of Appeal upheld the decision to strike out OC 166.
Claimants filed OA 480.
OA 480 dismissed.
Claimants filed CA 2.
CA 2 deemed withdrawn.
Claimants filed CA/SUM 8/2023.
SUM 8 dismissed.
Claimants filed SUM 16.
Claimants filed written submissions for SUM 16.
Applicants filed OA 696.
Edward Fitzgerald KC filed OA 811.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Ad Hoc Admission
    • Outcome: Applications for ad hoc admission were dismissed.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Special qualifications or experience
      • Special reason for admission
  2. Presumption of Innocence
    • Outcome: Issue not decided as the applications were dismissed on procedural grounds.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Evidentiary burden
      • Legal burden

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Ad Hoc Admission to the Supreme Court of Singapore

9. Cause of Actions

  • Application for Ad Hoc Admission

10. Practice Areas

  • Ad Hoc Admissions
  • Judicial Review

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Jumaat bin Mohamed SayedHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 176SingaporeCited for the conviction and sentencing of Jumaat for trafficking diamorphine.
Public Prosecutor v Zulkarnain bin Kemat and othersHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 161SingaporeCited for the conviction and sentencing of Saminathan for trafficking diamorphine.
Mohammad Rizwan bin Akbar Husain v Public Prosecutor and another appeal and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2020] SGCA 45SingaporeCited for upholding Saminathan's conviction and dismissing his application to adduce fresh evidence.
Public Prosecutor v Christeen d/o Jayamany and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 126SingaporeCited for the conviction and sentencing of Datchinamurthy for trafficking diamorphine.
Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 30SingaporeCited for the dismissal of Datchinamurthy's review application.
Public Prosecutor v Lingkesvaran Rajendaren and anotherHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 234SingaporeCited for the conviction and sentencing of Lingkesvaran for trafficking diamorphine.
Syed Suhail bin Syed Zin and others v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2022] 4 SLR 934SingaporeCited to show that OS 825 was an abuse of process.
Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2022] 2 SLR 1018SingaporeCited to show that OC 166 was struck out for having no chance of success.
Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 291SingaporeCited for the dismissal of OA 480 and the reasons for the dismissal.
Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed and others v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2023] 1 SLR 1437SingaporeCited for the dismissal of SUM 8 and the reasons for the dismissal.
Re Nicholas William Henric QC and another applicationHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 751SingaporeCited for the interpretation of the Legal Profession Act regarding ad hoc admission.
Re Beloff Michael Jacob QCCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 424SingaporeCited for the requirements for ad hoc admission of foreign counsel.
Re Harish Salve and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 345SingaporeCited to show that it is not necessary for foreign counsel to have had previous experience with the actual issue under consideration before the Singapore court.
Re Lord Goldsmith Peter Henry PC QCCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 921SingaporeCited for the interpretation of 'special reason' in the context of ad hoc admissions.
Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QCCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 66SingaporeCited for the circumstances under which special reason may exist where an individual shows that he cannot find any competent local counsel to represent him.
Gobi a/l Avedian v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 180SingaporeCited to show that the presumptions in s 18 of the MDA are evidential rather than legal presumptions.
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte VenablesHouse of LordsYes[1998] AC 407United KingdomCited as a case where Mr. Fitzgerald KC acted in judicial review.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and othersHouse of LordsYes[2008] 1 AC 385United KingdomCited as a case where Mr. Fitzgerald KC acted in judicial review.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021
O 24 r 5(2) of the Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act 1966Singapore
s 15 of the Legal Profession Act 1966Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 18(1) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs ActSingapore
Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Ad Hoc Admission
  • King’s Counsel
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Special Reason
  • Special Qualifications
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Presumption of Innocence
  • Judicial Review
  • Preliminary Objection

15.2 Keywords

  • Ad Hoc Admission
  • Legal Profession Act
  • King's Counsel
  • Misuse of Drugs Act
  • Singapore
  • Criminal Law
  • Constitutional Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Ad Hoc Admission100
Legal Profession Act95
Misuse of Drugs Act70
Criminal Law60
Administrative Law60
Constitutional Law50
Criminal Procedure40
Arbitration10

16. Subjects

  • Legal Profession
  • Criminal Law
  • Constitutional Law
  • Administrative Law