RE GEOFFREY BOBERTSON

RE GEOFFREY BOBERTSON

By majority the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s.18 provides a distinct mechanism for ad hoc admission of foreign counsel where the applicant demonstrates special qualifications or experience not available locally; the High Court erred by disregarding the supporting views of the Bar Council and Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee and by refusing admission without properly assessing the s.18(1)(a) threshold; accordingly the appellant should be admitted ad hoc for the four suits under s.18(1).

Citation
RE GEOFFREY BOBERTSON
Parties
Appellant (queen's Counsel): Geoffrey Robertson; Defendant/client: Rapheal Pura; Supporting Body: Bar Council; Supporting Body: Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee; Objector: Attorney General; Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs in four defamation suits
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (challenge to High Court Refusal of Ad Hoc Admission Under S.18 Legal Profession Act 1976) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal allowed (majority)
Legal Topics
Ad Hoc Admission, Bahasa Malaysia Qualifying Examination, Section 18 Legal Profession Act 1976, Foreign Counsel Practice, Weight of Bar Council Views
Source Language
en
Legal Profession Admission of Counsel Defamation Statutory Interpretation Ad Hoc Admission Bahasa Malaysia Qualifying Examination Section 18 Legal Profession Act 1976 Foreign Counsel Practice +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Robertson

Appellant (queen's Counsel)

Rapheal Pura

Defendant/client

Bar Council

Supporting Body

Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee

Supporting Body

Attorney General

Objector

Plaintiffs in four defamation suits

Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (challenge to High Court Refusal of Ad Hoc Admission Under S.18 Legal Profession Act 1976) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.18(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 permits ad hoc admission of foreign counsel notwithstanding s.11(2) Bahasa Malaysia requirement
  2. 2 Whether the appellant possessed special qualifications or experience of a nature not available among local advocates and solicitors for the four defamation suits
  3. 3 Whether allegations of prior misconduct/publication disqualify the appellant from ad hoc admission

Ratio Decidendi

By majority the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s.18 provides a distinct mechanism for ad hoc admission of foreign counsel where the applicant demonstrates special qualifications or experience not available locally; the High Court erred by disregarding the supporting views of the Bar Council and Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee and by refusing admission without properly assessing the s.18(1)(a) threshold; accordingly the appellant should be admitted ad hoc for the four suits under s.18(1).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (majority)

Orders

  • High Court dismissal of the s.18(1) applications set aside
  • Appellant to be admitted ad hoc under section 18(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 for the purpose of representing Rapheal Pura as lead counsel in the four defamation suits