RE EDWIN JOHN GLASGOW

----------------

DECISION

----------------

1. This is an application by Edwin John Glasgow, a Queen's Counsel practising in London, for admission to Hong Kong for the purposes of Companies Winding-up No. 108 of 1983.

2. The admission of Mr. Glasgow was opposed on limited grounds by counsel for the Bar Committee. Counsel for the Law Society was in support of the application and counsel for the Attorney General expressed himself to be in a neutral stance on this matter.

The Case

3. Three applicants in the Companies Winding-up action before a High Court Judge will be represented by Hong Kong silks. One of the latter will appear for two of the applicants. The third respondent will be represented by a Hong Kong silk and the first, second and fourth respondents by Hong Kong juniors.

4. This application has been made on behalf of a London silk to appear at the trial for the first and second respondents.

5. The trial was fixed in July, 1987 for fifteen hearing days, from 22nd February to 11th March, 1988.

6. In the case of Coles⁽¹⁾, in which the earlier cases of Gray⁽²⁾ and Tyrrell⁽³⁾ were reviewed, the Chief Justice observed that -

7. These are the general principles, hard though they may be to apply, which in my opinion ought to govern this application.

8. In this case, local solicitors, having heard that a local silk was to represent one of the applicants, formed the view that it was essential for the protection of the respondents, for a number of reasons set out in their affidavit, that their lay client should be represented by a leader.

9. With this decision I am not prepared to disagree. The question remaining is whether or not it was a case in which, in the public interest, it was proper that a London leader should be briefed. As the Chief Justice observed in Goldblatt⁽⁴⁾-

"In my view, it must be for the solicitor and his client to judge whether a leader is appropriate. It is not for the court to refuse an application for the admission of an overseas Queen's Counsel on the ground that the case does not merit a leader at all."

10. In the early stages of the inquiry by the Bar Committee, as set out in their letter to the applicant's solicitor on the 12th December, 1987, the Bar Committee was not sure whether local silks had been approached and found not to be available, or whether there were alleged to be issues of such unusual difficulties or complexity as warranted the admission of an overseas Counsel.

11. In their reply, dated 18th December, solicitors for the applicant both listed the manner in which they alleged the case to be of a difficult and complex nature and set out some of the local leading counsel who had been approached, or could not be approached by the respondents in the case because they were already involved in some way.

12. Thus, the solicitors for the applicants both asserted that it was a case in which no local counsel of appropriate skill and experience was available and that the case was one of unusual difficulty or complexity. I take it from their inquiries of local silk, however, before they approached the Bar Committee, as indicating that they did not genuinely regard this case as one of unusual difficulty or complexity but preferred, instead, to approach those members of the local bar in whose skill and experience they had appropriate faith.

13. At the top of page 488 in Goldblatt⁽⁴⁾, the Chief Justice commented -

"I do not consider that it is incumbent on an instructing solicitor to enquire of every local Queen's Counsel if he is available for a case. The most he can reasonably be expected to do is to approach those whom he thinks to be competent to undertake it. It is not to be taken as a general criticism of local counsel if, in some classes of case, the list of those acceptable to instructing solicitors is short. No sensible counsel pretends to be able to operate equally well in all fields."

14. In that case, the solicitor had made inquiries of seven local counsel, none of whom was available. In this instance, instructing solicitors felt themselves able to make inquiries of eight local counsel, three of whom were not available and five of whom had, in various respects, already been involved in the case against the applicant.

15. I regard this inquiry as sufficient by the local solicitors to show that they had a genuine intention of engaging local counsel, if a suitable one was available and that they approached a majority of those whom they thought appropriate. It is to be noted that, earlier in the action, they had briefed a local leader, who later said that he was not available for the trial.

16. So far as paragraph 6 of Coles^(l) is concerned, the list there set out is meant to be in the alternative. That means that if a local counsel with appropriate skill and experience is not available, there is no need to show that the case is one of unusual difficulty or complexity.

17. If, on the other hand, the allegation of local solicitors is that the case is one of unusual difficulty or complexity, it is necessary only to satisfy this. If that fails, then solicitors may have to approach local counsel to see if one of appropriate skill and experience is available. It is not necessary for them to approach all local leaders. Some are clearly inappropriate for some cases. A reasonable enquiry is sufficient.

18. I was satisfied in this case, though it is always a difficult matter to balance the factor of the public interest, in spite of the desirability of ensuring a strong Bar, that the applicants had made out the burden which lies upon them to show that it was in the public interest to permit an overseas admission in this case.

19. I, therefore, order that Mr. Edwin Glasgow should be admitted for the purposes of Companies Winding-up 108 of 1985 and on any appeals therefrom.

20. There will be no costs in this case.

(1)    [1985] H.K.L.R. 480

(2)    [1984] H.K.L.R. 367

(3)    [1984] H.K.L.R. 370

(4)    [1985] H.K.L.R. 484, 487

(4a)    [1985] H.K.L.R. 484