RE JOHN MICHAEL WRIGHT

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an application under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance for the admission of an overseas counsel, Mr. John Michael Wright, Q.C., to appear on behalf of the defendant in High Court Action No. A3657 of 1985.

2. The application is based on two main grounds. Firstly, that the case is one of unusual difficulty and complexity and, secondly, that it is one of those cases which fell within para. 6(d) of the tests set out in the application of Coles ¹ .

3. That paragraph suggests that the burden, which lies on an applicant to show cause why an overseas counsel should be admitted, can be discharged if the case is of such a nature as makes it desirable for overseas counsel to appear, e.g. a case involving a very well-known personality.

4. The application is opposed both by the Bar Committee and by the Attorney General. The Law Society was issued with notice of the hearing, and by its absence can be taken not to have wished to put forward any submissions on the matter.

5. So far as the first ground is concerned, that is to say that the case is one of unusual difficulty or complexity, I have been shown the pleadings and considered the summary of the case which is set out in the affidavit and letters of Mr. Peter Cheung, the solicitor representing the defendant and the applicant.

6. I have been referred by Mr. Litton to a number of cases which deal with matters which seem to come close to the issues which are summarized in the affidavit of Mr. Cheung. It is not easy, on a superficial examination of the pleadings and of such an affidavit, which is also necessarily fairly short, to form a view about the complexity or otherwise of the case.

7. However, I have not been shown anything which leads me to suppose that this is a matter which lies outside the normal range of competence of the average Hong Kong silk, if I may use that expression without meaning to be critical. Thus, I am not satisfied that it has been established to be a case of unusual difficulty.

8. The other ground on which the application is based is that, although the defendant is the insurer, behind him lie a number of reinsurers who, because of their liability under the terms of their reinsurance contracts with the defendant, have an interest in the outcome of the action. It is said that those reinsurers have been familiar with the work of the applicant in the past and that it is their preference that he should represent the defendant.

9. I find it difficult to give much weight to this consideration, since the reinsurers are not themselves a party to the action, even though it has not been disputed that there are reinsurers who might have, if the action went against the defendant, to meet a portion of the latter's liability.

10. Were the reinsurers themselves a party to the action and had they been in the habit of retaining Mr. Wright in cases in which they were involved in the United Kingdom, this would have been a much stronger consideration. However; in case more is read into my words than I wish them to bear, I should make it clear that the fact that an overseas counsel, whose admission is sought, has been retained in other matters by the lay client, who wishes to retain him for a Hong Kong matter also, is not to be thought conclusive. In proper circumstances, this is an argument that could have same force, and might be held to fall within paragraph 6(d).

11. I note that, in the Hong Kong Ear Association's letter of 14th February, it puts forward, as one of its reasons for objecting to the admission of Mr. Wright, that no attempt was made, at a preliminary stage, to seek the advice of a local leader. I do not regard that as a factor to which I would normally give any weight in an application of this kind.

12. For the reasons which I have given, I do not think that the applicant has discharged the burden which lies on him to show that overseas counsel ought to be admitted for this case and the application is dismissed.

1 [1985] H.K.L.R. 480