Back
Sharma J (delivering oral JUDGMENT):
This is an application by Mr. Shoo Khoon Lee for an ad hoc admission under s. 8A of the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, 1947. The relevant provisions are laid down in sub-section (2) (a) which reads: "No person shall be admitted to practise as an advocate and solicitor under sub-section (1) 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.
The fate of the application depends entirely on the meaning and interpretation of sub-section (2) (a) of s. 8A. S 8A seems aimed at harmonising the interests of the advocates and solicitors of Malaysia with the wishes of a particular litigant who desires to retain a particular lawyer, such particular lawyer being a person who but for the amendments recently made, would have been a "qualified person" under the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, 1947.
The word "qualification" used in s. 8A (2) (a) denotes an accomplishment or a quality and the adjective "special" qualifying it indicates that the accomplishment contemplated should be of an exceptional degree or such that excels in some way the measure of accomplishments reached by the advocates and solicitors of Malaysia. As I read sub-section (2)(a) the applicant should be such a person who, as a lawyer and on the evidence before the Court, exhibits distinguished qualities or is devoted to a particular branch or field of law. Instances would be of persons who specialise, for example, in income tax law, or trade marks, divorce practice, shipping law, etc and have achieved such heights in the exercise of their profession that they stand out as great luminaries in the firmament of law. The list of such examples can by no means be exhaustive. It all depends upon the particular qualifications a particular lawyer has or the particular subject to which he has devoted himself. There may be, for example, instances where a lawyer exclusively practises before the highest Courts of the land, or the highest appellate Courts of the various countries of the Commonwealth or other lands where the law is similar to our own.
The words "not available" used in sub-section (2) (a) seem to mean "not obtainable." It would thus seem that it is the excelling virtue born of the applicant's special qualifications or experience that has got to be considered and that excelling virtue must be such h as outclasses the excellence to be found in the local lawyers. The special qualifications or experience are required to be of a quality and type which cannot be had amongst the advocates and solicitors in Malaysia. The applicant may have special qualifications or experience but that alone does not seem to be sufficient under the statute. He has to go further and satisfy the Court that the special qualifications he possesses or the experience he professes to have are comparatively of such a type and character that no advocate and solicitor practising in Malaysia can be said to possess or equal that high degree of accomplishment which has been acquired or exhibited by the applicant. I have said earlier that in my view s. 8A seems apparently aimed to facilitate the admission of those members of the Bar from other countries who have attained renown and distinction.
The grounds on which the application is made are contained in the affidavits of Mr. SK Lee himself and these are more or less repeated in the affidavit of Mr. Ng. I will shortly deal with each of these grounds. The grounds put forward are:-
(1) The applicant was instructed to represent the appellant in the appeal which is to come up before the Federal Court.
(2) The appeal record was served on the applicant.
(3) The applicant appeared at the trial which was inordinately long and in which numerous points of law were involved.
(4) The case dealt with highly technical and expert evidence given by psychiatrists.
