The court may grant an ad hoc license to practice if it serves the interests of justice, particularly in complex legal matters requiring experienced counsel.

[1] Before me is the application of the petitioner, Mr Cyrus Das, for ad hoc licence to practice in the Federal Court sitting at Kuching in the State of Sarawak for the notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Federal Court in Federal Court Civil Application No. 08(F)-95-03-2018(Q) and the appeal proper (if any) emanating therefrom pursuant to s 10(c)(i) and (ii) of the Sarawak Advocates Ordinance 1953 ("SAO").

[2] The application is supported by the following:

(i) Affidavit affirmed by the petitioner, Cyrus Das, affirmed on 16 October 2018;

(ii) Affidavit affirmed by a local advocate and solicitor, George Lo Kuin Fah affirmed on 16 October 2018 who is representing the clients; and

(iii) Affidavit affirmed by Ng Chee Kian on 16 October 2018 on behalf of the clients.

[3] The application is opposed by several parties, namely:

(i) the respondent (HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd) in the notice of motion in the Federal Court;

(ii) the Advocates' Association of Sarawak; and

(iii) the State Attorney General's Chambers.

[4] The right to practice law in Sarawak is governed by s 8 of the SAO which reads as follows:

Section 8 . Right to practice in Sarawak.

(1) Subject to subsection (2) and to s 9, advocates shall have the exclusive right to practice in Sarawak and to appear and plead in the Federal Court in Sarawak and the High Court, and in all courts in Sarawak subordinate thereto in which advocates may appear, and, as between themselves, shall have the same rights and privileges without differentiation: ...

[5] The Federal Court in Datuk Hj Mohammad Tufail Mahmud & Ors v. Dato' Ting Check Sii, [2009] 4 MLJ 165 gives recognition to this exclusive right of audience enjoyed by the Sarawak lawyers in the courts. The Court held:

Article 161B of the Constitution, which was mentioned in s 87(9) of the Malaysia Act, is self-explanatory. It forms the safeguard for the Sabah and Sarawak Bars which restricts the right to practise only to its resident advocates as agreed to by the respective State Legislations.

[6] That said, pursuant to s 10(c) of the SAO, upon the application of a petitioner who has the qualifications stated in s 4(1) of the SAO, the Chief Judge or in his absence from Sarawak, a judge, in his absolute discretion, can grant permission to the petitioner to practice in any cause or matter if (i) the petitioner has been instructed by a local advocate and (ii) having regard to all the relevant circumstances, it is in the interest of justice to grant such permission.

[7] There is no denying that Mr Cyrus Das has fulfilled the qualifications stated in sub-section (1) of s 4 of SAO. Also, the requirements of s 10(c)(i) of the Ordinance are met.

[8] The background facts leading to the filing of the notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Federal Court that I can gather from the submissions of Mr George Lo, of learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms Chan Siew Yan of learned counsel for the respondent in the notice of motion are these.

[9] In July 2013, HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad commenced Suit No. KCH-22-57-7-2013 in the High Court against the borrower (RJ Timur Sdn Bhd) and four others, including the two applicants in the notice of motion, as guarantors. The claim against the applicants was based on seven guarantees executed by the applicants who were also shareholders and directors of the borrowing company. The guarantees were und