• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Judge explains why nTan is allowed to hire foreign QC

wendychan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
6,139
Points
63
http://www.singaporelawwatch.com/sl...qc?utm_source=web subscription&utm_medium=web

Source
Straits Times
Date
20 Sep 2013
THE High Court has allowed a foreign lawyer to argue a case here because it found that very few senior counsel in Singapore have his breadth of experience.

Justice Judith Prakash's ruling opens the way for Queen's Counsel Michael Beloff to represent nTan Corporate Advisory.

Mr Beloff, who is from Britain, has over 45 years of legal practice. He has appeared in the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights and has acted in the courts of Commonwealth countries, including Singapore.

In May, nTan - which advises troubled companies on restructuring - succeeded in its application for Mr Beloff to represent it.

The firm, which is headed by insolvency accountant Nicky Tan, wants to set aside a Court of Appeal judgment made in September last year, which strongly criticised nTan. The issues involve the period when nTan was an independent financial adviser of Singapore Exchange-listed TT International and later when it was appointed judicial manager.

nTan claims the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to issue the judgment, it was not given a fair hearing, and the court's decision was made in breach of the rules of natural justice.

In her grounds of decision on Tuesday, Justice Prakash noted that 14 law firms and their senior counsel could not act for nTan as they are or had been involved in the matter. Also, nTan's arguments raise "serious questions" about the propriety of the Court of Appeal's process in this case and fundamental questions as to its jurisdiction.

"The Law Society had conceded... this was an application which a local counsel 'may not relish' making," said Justice Prakash. Allen & Gledhill's Mr Edwin Tong represents nTan.
 
Back
Top