XCHRX In re v. THOMAS, ROBERT NEVILLE Q.C.

1996, M.P. No. 2063

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS

________________

________________

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

J U D G M E N T

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

Hon Yang, C.J.:

1. This is an application for a London silk to be admitted to appear for the defendants/appellants in Civil Appeal No.82 of 1996.

2. The Attorney General takes a neutral stance.

3. I have considered the points of law which will be raised in the appeal, i.e. agency, contract, certified cheque. In my view, the case is not one of such unusual difficulty or complexity, or one which requires specialist knowledge of the kind not available from the local Bar, that it necessitates the admission of a London silk, no matter how eminent.

4. In coming to my judgment, I take into account that the appellants and their professional advisers genuinely wish to have the assistance of the London silk concerned.

5. On the point about the need to criticize the conduct of a local counsel who represented the defendants in the trial, my view is that this is not a good enough reason for the admission of overseas counsel. This reason does not per se make it a case in which it is desirable for a London silk to appear. If the reason given here is adopted, any major criticisms of counsel will by itself give rise to a need for overseas counsel. The fact that the counsel facing criticism comes from a well-known legal family in Hong Kong is neither here nor there. By this line of reasoning, the independence, integrity and professionalism of the local Bar seems to have been called into question. I cannot believe this is what this application is intended to do.

6. Indeed, the qualities I have alluded to above have never been doubted, either here or in other jurisdictions.

7. For these reasons, I refuse the application.

( T L Yang )

Chief Justice