XCHRX In re Robin Potts Q.C.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

1995, No. 1102
(Miscellaneous Proceedings)

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yang, C.J.:

1. This is an application for the admission of Mr Robin Potts, QC, to the local Bar to advise on and to appear on behalf of the Respondents in Companies (Winding-up) No.16 of 1995, a petition brought under sections 168A and 177 of the Companies Ordinance, Cap.32.

2. In 1988 the Hong Kong Bar Association stated that they had no objection to the admission of Mr Potts to the local Bar for the purpose of advising the Respondents in Companies Winding-up No. 195 of 1988. The Respondents at the time intended to apply for the 1988 petition to be struck out. In May 1989 the Petitioner agreed to the dismissal of the 1988 petition without any hearing on the merits, thereby obviating the admission of Mr Potts in Hong Kong.

3. It is not disputed that the Petitioner in the 1988 and 1995 petitions is the same, despite a change in the name. The Respondents are the same. The company in respect of which relief is sought is also the same. About half of the issue in the 1988 petition are repeated in the 1995 petition, the rest are new.

4. Mr Potts' advice was obtained in relation to two of the matters complained of in the 1995 petition, namely, the reorganisation of the First Respondent and the First Respondent's transfer of the ownership of a hotel to a company in British Virgin Islands.

5. Mr Faulkner acting for the applicant fairly concedes that the fact that an overseas counsel had advised a lay client in Hong Kong in a previous case does not give rise to a right to the lay client to have the same overseas counsel in a subsequent though similar case.

6. Whereas in 1988 two Japanese companies were involved, now the shareholdings held by these Japanese companies are vested in the Third Respondent, a Hong Kong person.

7. In the course of submissions, the usual well-known authorities were considered, viz., Re Cole [1985] HKLR 480, Re Goldblatt [1985] HKLR 484 and Re Lord Irvine [1988] 2 HKLR 582.

8. The First Respondent is a Hong Kong company. The "only international element", if there ever was one, no longer exists. The fact that the laws of British Virgin Islands may come into play does not render the petition "international".

9. Having considered all the circumstances, I am unable to say that the case is one of unusual difficulty or complexity, or that no local counsel of appropriate skill and experience is available. There is nothing to indicate that public interest warrants admission of a London counsel, however eminent. I therefore refused the application.