Abdul Malek Ahmad FCJ:

On 16 June 1999, the respondent, who is not a citizen of, or a permanent resident in, Malaysia had applied for ad hoc admission to practise as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court Malaya under s. 18(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (hereinafter "the LPA") for the purpose of acting as leading counsel for the defendant Raphael Pura in four defamation actions instituted by the second, third, fourth and fifth appellants against him.

The said s. 18(1) of the LPA reads:

18. Admission in special cases.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Court may, for the purpose of any one case and subject to the following subsections, admit to practise as an advocate and solicitor any person who, if he was a citizen of, or a permanent resident in, Malaysia, would be eligible to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court and no person shall be admitted to practise as an advocate and solicitor under this subsection unless:

(a) for the purpose of that particular case he has, in the opinion of the Court, special qualifications or experience of a nature not available amongst advocates and solicitors in Malaysia; and

(b) he has been instructed by an advocate and solicitor in Malaysia.

The grounds supporting the said application were that the respondent possessed special qualifications and experience of a nature not available amongst advocates and solicitors in this country although the respondent's affidavit did not state in detail the unusual or difficult issues which would arise in the suits and that he was conversant with the Federal Constitution. The Bar Council had affirmed an affidavit through its Secretary strongly supporting the application while the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee at the hearing had informed the High Court that they had no objections and were in fact supporting the application.

The first appellant was of the view that the defamation actions did not involve novel and complex questions on the laws of libel and slander and that the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege had been successfully argued in a number of similar cases by eminent local advocates and solicitors. Thus, there was no reason for the respondent to come into the picture. Learned counsel for the other appellants voiced the same view.

Following the arguments, despite the respondent's otherwise impressive academic record, the learned High Court judge (Faiza Tamby Chik, J) had on 27 September 1999 dismissed the applications.

In the appeal before the Court of Appeal, the decision on 27 June 2001 was divided. Haidar Mohd. Noor, JCA (as he then was) and Abdul Kadir Sulaiman, JCA allowed the appeal while Abdul Hamid Mohamed, JCA dismissed it.

The majority judgment of the Court of Appeal stressed that the fate of the application by the respondent depended entirely on the interpretation of s. 18 of the LPA. The relevant part of that judgment reads:

So as to harmonise the interests of the advocates and solicitors of Malaysia with the wishes of a particular litigant who desires to retain a particular foreign lawyer, certain stringent conditions are imposed by section 18 upon foreign lawyers as so spelt out in sub-section (1)(a) thereof. If, however, this foreign lawyer meets the stringent conditions imposed by the sub-section, there should not be any grouse on the part of the local advocates and solicitors for giving way to this foreign lawyer because the qualifications or experience is of a nature not available amongst them. The court having satisfied of the qualifications or experience required, is then empowered to admit to practise as an advocate and solicitor this foreign lawyer to represent the particular litigant in respect of any particular case this foreign lawyer is called upon to represent. However, before admitting him, sub-section (3) thereof requires the court to have regard to the views of each of the persons served with the applications. In the instant case befor