Re Smith, Tom KC: Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Counsel in UTSS Appeal
The General Division of the High Court of Singapore, in the matter of Re Smith, Tom KC [2025] SGHC 9, addressed an application by Tom Smith KC for ad hoc admission to represent UT Singapore Services Pte Ltd (UTSS) in appeals against Hin Leong Trading (Pte) Ltd (HLT) and its liquidators. The court, presided over by Steven Chong JCA, dismissed the application, finding that UTSS's existing local counsel was competent and that there was no 'need' to admit foreign counsel. The court also noted UTSS had not demonstrated a reasonably conscientious search for local counsel.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Admission application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to admit Tom Smith KC for UTSS's appeal was dismissed. The court found local counsel competent and no 'need' for foreign representation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Other | Government Agency | Successful Objection | Won | Vincent Leow of Attorney-General’s Chambers Jeyendran s/o Jeyapal of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sarah Siaw Ming Hui of Attorney-General’s Chambers Dan Pan Xue Wen of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tom Smith KC | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| UT Singapore Services Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Hin Leong Trading (Pte) Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Successful Objection | Won | |
| Mr Goh Thien Phong | Respondent | Individual | Successful Objection | Won | |
| Mr Chan Kheng Tek | Respondent | Individual | Successful Objection | Won | |
| Law Society of Singapore | Other | Statutory Board | Successful Objection | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Vincent Leow | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Jeyendran s/o Jeyapal | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sarah Siaw Ming Hui | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Dan Pan Xue Wen | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Nandakumar Ponniya Servai | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Wong Tjen Wee | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Emmanuel Duncan Chua | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Lee Yu Lun Darrell | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Lim Jia Ren | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Tan Jia Xin | Wong & Leow LLC |
| Vergis S Abraham | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Lau Hui Ming Kenny | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Alston Yeong | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Huang Xinli Daniel | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Kyle Chong Kee Cheng | Providence Law Asia LLC |
| Lee Ming En | Lee & Lee |
| Saw Seang Kuan | Lee & Lee |
4. Facts
- Tom Smith KC applied for ad hoc admission to represent UTSS in appeals against HLT and its liquidators.
- UTSS was the operator of a petroleum storage facility.
- HLT was a company primarily engaged in the business of oil trading.
- The appeals concerned the dismissal of UTSS's application to set aside a scheme meeting order and the sanction of a scheme of arrangement.
- UTSS was already represented by local counsel, Mr. Nandakumar, in the appeals.
- The Law Society and the Attorney-General opposed the admission application.
- The court found that the issues in the appeals were not so novel or complex that they were beyond the competence of local counsel.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Smith, Tom KC, Originating Application No 1060 of 2024, [2025] SGHC 9
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act 1966 enacted. | |
| Singapore Parliament debates on admission of foreign counsel. | |
| Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2012 enacted. | |
| HLT and UTSS enter into various Tankage and Storage Agreements and spot contracts. | |
| HLT and UTSS enter into various Tankage and Storage Agreements and spot contracts. | |
| HLT placed under interim judicial management. | |
| UTSS terminated the Storage Agreements. | |
| HLT placed under judicial management. | |
| Judicial managers of HLT applied for HLT to be compulsorily wound up. | |
| Court ordered for HLT to be wound up. | |
| Mr Goh and Mr Chan appointed as the joint and several liquidators of HLT. | |
| Liquidators filed summonses to seek court’s directions on the validity of the alleged security interests of the Financing Banks. | |
| Liquidators filed summonses to seek court’s directions on the validity of the alleged security interests of UTSS. | |
| Liquidators presented the proposed Scheme to the creditors of HLT. | |
| Liquidators applied for leave to convene a scheme meeting. | |
| Judge granted the Convening Application. | |
| UTSS applied to set aside the Convening Order. | |
| Scheme meeting convened. | |
| Liquidators applied for the Scheme to be sanctioned. | |
| Judge granted the Sanction Application. | |
| UTSS filed notices of appeal in CA 55 and CA 54. | |
| Applicant brought the present application for the purpose of representing UTSS in the Appeals. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Ad Hoc Admission of Foreign Counsel
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for ad hoc admission, finding that the existing local counsel was competent and there was no 'need' for foreign representation.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Competence of local counsel
- Necessity for foreign counsel
- Availability of local counsel
- Reasonableness of admitting foreign counsel
- Classification of Creditors in Scheme of Arrangement
- Outcome: The court found that the issues were not complex and could be resolved by an application of local insolvency principles.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Appropriate classification of creditors
- Validity of security interests
- Jurisdiction to hear classification objections
8. Remedies Sought
- Ad Hoc Admission to Practice as Advocate and Solicitor
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Ad Hoc Admission
10. Practice Areas
- Ad Hoc Admission
- Commercial Litigation
- Insolvency
- Restructuring
11. Industries
- Legal
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 principle that the standard for ad hoc admission applications is 'need,' which goes beyond mere desirability, preference, or convenience. |
| Kassimatis, Theodoros KC v Attorney-General and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2024] 2 SLR 410 | Singapore | Cited as an example where ad hoc admission was sought for an appeal, and the party seeking representation was unrepresented at first instance. |
| Re Wordsworth, Samuel Sherratt QC | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 179 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an applicant for ad hoc admission must possess special qualifications or experience relevant to the specific issues in the case. |
| Re Rogers, Heather QC | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1064 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in assessing whether s 15(1)(c) is satisfied, the court must first identify the issues in the case at hand in a clear and fair manner before assessing the qualifications and experience of the applicant with reference to those identified issues. |
| The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Reliance National Asia Re Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 121 | Singapore | Cited to support the relevance of English debt restructuring regime to Singapore's scheme of arrangement regime. |
| Re Landau, Toby Thomas QC | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 258 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that novelty of an issue does not necessarily equate to complexity beyond the competence of local counsel. |
| The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | No | [2012] 2 SLR 213 | Singapore | Cited to show that UTSS omitted to challenge the classification at the usual time when the convening order was sought. |
| Re Fordham, Michael QC | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 272 | Singapore | Cited to caution litigants against having a sole gravitation to Senior Counsel when demonstrating the non-availability of local counsel. |
| Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC | High Court | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 66 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement that full details of the party’s efforts in securing local counsel should be presented to the court. |
| Re Lord Goldsmith Peter Henry PC QC | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 921 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that non-admission of foreign senior counsel does not prevent them from assisting with the preparation of written submissions in an appeal. |
| Re Millar Gavin James QC | High Court | No | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 297 | Singapore | Cited to show that it cannot be the case that a litigant is entitled to be represented by a foreign senior counsel simply because the opposing party is represented by a senior counsel. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2024 |
| r 47(1) of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2024 |
| Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 21 r 2(1) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
| Section 15 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 210 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Ad hoc admission
- Foreign counsel
- Scheme of arrangement
- Liquidators
- Creditor classification
- Competence of local counsel
- Need for foreign counsel
- Notification Matters
- Legal Profession Act
- Senior Counsel
15.2 Keywords
- Ad hoc admission
- Foreign counsel
- Singapore
- Legal Profession Act
- Insolvency
- Restructuring
- UTSS
- HLT
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Admissions
- Civil Procedure
- Insolvency Law
- Restructuring Law