In re Colin Reese, QC,

1993, NO. MP3698

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS

__________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Yang, CJ:

There are in fact 2 applications rolled into one at this hearing. There is an application for leave for Mr Colin Reese, a London Queen's Counsel, to appear at an application for leave to appeal, and there is at the same time an application for leave for Mr Reese to appear at the appeal proper, Whilst it is conceivable that different considerations may arise in respect of each application, in my view, in the circumstances of this hearing, the realistic and sensible approach is to treat the two applications as one, so that both applications should stand or fall together.

2. The application is opposed by the Bar, and the Attorney General takes a neutral stance.

3. The matter arose out of an arbitration, and it is clear that there have not been many applications for leave to appeal an arbitration award in Hong Kong. It therefore follows, so the argument may go, the experience of the local Bar in this regard is limited. Be that as it may, the thrust of the argument advanced on behalf of Mr Reese is that the Quantum Arbitrator had erred in law, in that he had, inter alia, made findings which were inconsistent with the earlier findings of the Liability Arbitrator. There are other complaints, specified in the Grounds of Appeal, which I do not think for the purpose of this hearing I need go into.

4. The letter from the solicitors concerned, i.e., Denton Hall, dated 9 September 1993, and addressed to the Attorney General's Chambers as well as the Hong Kong Bar Association, stresses that the appellate court will have to consider the relationship between the Quantum and Liability Arbitrators. Three sub-headings are argued under this main contention from the letter, as follows: -

"(1) whether, and if so, to what extent, the Quantum Arbitrator may depart from the findings of the Liability Arbitrator on issues of fact, issues of law and issues involving mixed law and fact;

(2) whether, and if so, to what extent, the Quantum Arbitrator is bound by directions given by the Liability Arbitrator relating to the evidence that the Quantum Arbitrator should consider; and

(3) whether, and if so, to what extent, the Quantum Arbitrator may receive or consider evidence and arguments which have and which have not been made or adduced before the Liability Arbitrator with regard to the above issues."

5. It is, of course, well-known in this jurisdiction that the considered views of solicitors who are involved in the case in question should be given due weight. However, nothing which has been said to me shows that either the facts or the law are of such unusual difficulty and complexity that no counsel in Hong Kong is available to address the issues with competence. The vast experience and expertise of Mr Reese is not in doubt but, as has been indicated, the issue is that the case is of such unusual complexity and difficulty as to require the presence of a leader from overseas, and I am not satisfied that the issues to be argued are of such complexity and difficulty.

6. For these reasons, the Motion is dismissed.