RE ROBIN POTTS QC

RE ROBIN POTTS QC

The court found the underlying swap and related facts raised questions of mixed law and fact and involved difficult and important legal issues (including the impingement of corporate conscience and the remedial vs institutional constructive trust debate) in an international commercial context; solicitors made genuine efforts to find local counsel; admission under s.27 in the public interest was therefore justified and the application was granted.

Citation
RE ROBIN POTTS QC
Parties
Applicant: Robin Potts QC; Opponent: The Bar Association; Instructing Party in Underlying Action: Commerzbank; Defendant in Underlying Action: Peregrine Fixed Income Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 September 1999
Case Number
HCMP4108/1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Admission to the Hong Kong Bar Under Section 27 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (cap.159) for a Particular Case / Hearing and Judgment on Application (admission Under S.27)
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Impingement of Corporate Conscience, Remedial Versus Institutional Constructive Trust, Ad Hoc Admission of Overseas Counsel, ISDA Master Agreement and International Transactions
Source Language
EN
Trusts Company Law Commercial Law Professional Admission to the Bar Constructive Trust Impingement of Corporate Conscience Remedial Versus Institutional Constructive Trust Ad Hoc Admission of Overseas Counsel +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Potts QC

Applicant

The Bar Association

Opponent

Commerzbank

Instructing Party in Underlying Action

Peregrine Fixed Income Limited

Defendant in Underlying Action

Procedural Posture

Application for Admission to the Hong Kong Bar Under Section 27 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (cap.159) for a Particular Case / Hearing and Judgment on Application (admission Under S.27)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be admitted under section 27 for a particular case
  2. 2 Whether the case is one of unusual difficulty and complexity warranting overseas counsel
  3. 3 Whether local senior counsel of appropriate skill and experience was unavailable

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the underlying swap and related facts raised questions of mixed law and fact and involved difficult and important legal issues (including the impingement of corporate conscience and the remedial vs institutional constructive trust debate) in an international commercial context; solicitors made genuine efforts to find local counsel; admission under s.27 in the public interest was therefore justified and the application was granted.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Robin Potts QC admitted to appear and act as a barrister in the particular case pursuant to section 27 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap.159)