- Flynote
- Legal Profession
- Case summary
- Application refused on the basis that the Chief Justice was not satisfied that Mr Gale has demonstrated either the experience in legal practice or expertise in the subject matter of proceedings CL 88/2021 for the purposes of Section 8(1) of the Legal Profession Ordinance. The Court found from reading of the relevant portions of the legislation, that the grant of limited admission is within the discretion of the Chief Justice, who must be satisfied that the requirements set out in sections 8 (1) and 8(2) have been met. Therefore, the starting point was to consider what the sponsoring attorney must satisfy the Chief Justice of regarding the applicant, and the reason for the application. [8] This duty is discharged when the sponsoring attorney provides evidence to satisfy the Chief Justice that: the applicant has the necessary qualifications under section 5(1) of the LPO; and they have instructed such person for the purpose of “appearing, acting and advising” in the suit or matter which limited admission is required for. [9] To satisfy the Chief Justice, is also to provide the Chief Justice with material to be used in the exercise of judicial discretion, which must lead to a just and equitable result. The Chief Justice will have regard to all of the particular circumstances surrounding the suit or matter concerned. Considerations include the difficulty or complexity of the matter, the resources and support available to the particular attorney-at-law who has instructed the person proposed to be admitted, the availability of local lawyers, the importance of adequate safeguards to protect the growth and development of the local Bar and to prevent the outsourcing of legal work save in exceptional cases, the applying party’s need for adequate legal representation taking account of the nature and complexity of the case, the expertise and experience of the counsel seeking admission, whether their work is being conducted in or from within the TCI and their involvement in the conduct of the litigation. [10] ( In the Matter of Certain Applications for Limited Admissions, as an Attorney at Law [2009 CILR 41]; In the Matter of Various Applications for the Grant of Limited Admission as an Attorney-at-Law of the Cayman Islands [2015] (2) CILR 338, considered). In refusing the application, the Court considered the applicant had almost 6 years standing at the Bar of England and Wales, without any demonstrated expertise in the area of the case at hand, and nothing else to speak for him, save that he possesses legal qualifications from prestigious institutions. This did not in the Court’s opinion qualify him to be admitted for a limited purpose within the intendment of Section 8. [14]
Loading PDF...
This document is 1.2 MB. Do you want to load it?