No QC for Feer case, rules judge
-
No QC for Feer case, rules judge
Defamation suit against it 'not complex enough'
THE Singapore High Court has rejected the Far Eastern Economic Review's (Feer) application to use a British Queen's Counsel to represent the magazine in a defamation case.
According to court documents obtained yesterday, Justice Tan Lee Meng ruled on Friday that the defamation suit filed against Feer — filed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew — was "not sufficiently difficult and complex" and will not require the services of a Queen's Counsel.
The Hong Kong-based magazine had said in its affidavit it needed libel specialist Gavin Millar, who has successfully argued several high-profile cases in Britain, because of the complex nature of its defence.
.
The judge noted that the fact that Queen's Counsels have been admitted in the past for defamation cases cannot, by itself, justify their continued admission except in the most exceptional circumstances.
.
Said Justice Tan: "As the issues in the libel suits are not sufficiently difficult and complex and can be handled by local counsel ... the application to admit Mr Millar on an ad-hoc basis to represent the defendants in the libel suits is dismissed."
The two Singapore leaders had sued the magazine's editor Hugo Restall and Hong Kong-based Review Publishing, its owners, alleging defamation in an article based on an interview with opposition leader Chee Soon Juan.
Mr Peter Low, Feer's local lawyer, said the magazine has not decided to appeal against the decision. It has one month to do so.
Meanwhile, a separate appeal filed by Feer is scheduled for hearing at the Court of Appeal early next month. The magazine is challenging the decision to have the Singapore courts preside over the defamation suits.
Singapore banned the distribution of the magazine in September as it had failed to comply with media regulations. — Agencies
Defamation suit against it 'not complex enough'
THE Singapore High Court has rejected the Far Eastern Economic Review's (Feer) application to use a British Queen's Counsel to represent the magazine in a defamation case.
.
According to court documents obtained yesterday, Justice Tan Lee Meng ruled on Friday that the defamation suit filed against Feer — filed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew — was "not sufficiently difficult and complex" and will not require the services of a Queen's Counsel.
The Hong Kong-based magazine had said in its affidavit it needed libel specialist Gavin Millar, who has successfully argued several high-profile cases in Britain, because of the complex nature of its defence.
The judge noted that the fact that Queen's Counsels have been admitted in the past for defamation cases cannot, by itself, justify their continued admission except in the most exceptional circumstances.
.
Said Justice Tan: "As the issues in the libel suits are not sufficiently difficult and complex and can be handled by local counsel ... the application to admit Mr Millar on an ad-hoc basis to represent the defendants in the libel suits is dismissed."
The two Singapore leaders had sued the magazine's editor Hugo Restall and Hong Kong-based Review Publishing, its owners, alleging defamation in an article based on an interview with opposition leader Chee Soon Juan.
Mr Peter Low, Feer's local lawyer, said the magazine has not decided to appeal against the decision. It has one month to do so.
Meanwhile, a separate appeal filed by Feer is scheduled for hearing at the Court of Appeal early next month. The magazine is challenging the decision to have the Singapore courts preside over the defamation suits.
Singapore banned the distribution of the magazine in September as it had failed to comply with media regulations. — Agencies
So should Lee and Son be allowed to hire a senior counsel? Which is supposedlly, Singapore's equivalent of a Queens council? -
As the case is "not sufficiently difficult and complex", there wouldn't be a need for senior counsel. Any new admits to the bar will suffice.
-
CSJ had to "self-represent" due to the same reason that the case was not complex enough. Arguing his case in court agianst a certain Mr Davinder Singh, who is a Senior Counsel. I foresee the same thing will happen.
-
Whether or not justice will be done, one can argue that already.... it is not seen to be done.
"But while that is so, a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
They should also try this in the Hong Kong courts (judges there not directly or indirectly appointed by the plaintiffs or defendants) or an International tribunal for justice to "manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
Another black mark and sad day in the history of Singapore. -
The QCs "resume" quite "kilat". I wonder if Lee and Son fear him...
http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers/gavin_millar_qc.cfmGavin Millar is described as "a big talent" in the defamation/privacy section of Chambers & Partners 2007. This also identifies him as a leading silk in the employment section. He is listed in the defamation section of Legal Experts 2006. He was recently described as "excellent" in Legal Week - The Entertainers. He has been listed in the The Lawyer's "Hot 100" lawyers for 2007.
It would be really interesting to see the QC represent FEER. -
And so this kangaroo court continues its usual bootlicking.
-
Another example of trying to use 'arm muscles' to represent 'righteous' and 'justice'?
-
i'm not surprised the application has being rejected....
-
Like I said, FEER should simply boycott Singapore as a print media destination.
Refuse to defend and walk out. -
The cj will never want to jeopardise his life by approving the application ...Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:And so this kangaroo court continues its usual bootlicking. -
Get ready to see Harry Elias defend FEER.
-
Call me ignorant or anything ... but i thought the govt in singapore have jurisdiction over the court ?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Get ready to see Harry Elias defend FEER. -
Not in theory. In practice, the courts are independant, just that they may appear to laymen like you and I to veer on side of policy and ideals of the ruling administration.Originally posted by Trump_Card:Call me ignorant or anything ... but i thought the govt in singapore have jurisdiction over the court ? -
Wake up! The verdict was passed long ago in favour of Singapore. Making wild allegations against the Singapore courts without a shred of evidence only resulted in dismissal of the case and millions of dollars in costs:Originally posted by maurizio13:
"Before the Supreme Court, Enernorth argued that to recognize judgments such as those from Singapore meant that Canadian judges were "mere functionaries or sheriffs for foreign legal systems, no matter how corrupt they are". Oakwell responded that it was for Canadian courts to decide on this, based on the criteria laid out by the courts. Among other things, it pointed out that Enernorth had neither alleged bias nor contested the Singapore courts' jurisdiction when the case was heard in Singapore. When the case was moved to Canada, two of Enernorth's expert witnesses – including Francis Seow – had admitted they were unaware of any commercial case from Singapore that had been attacked as unfair or biased. In January 2007, the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, dismissed Enernorth's appeal and ordered it to bear the costs of the appeal.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakwell_Engineering_v._Enernorth_Industries
What a joker you are! Your posts do well to proclaim you an ignoramus par excellence
-
that's right...admit defeat and pay damages. It's cheaper to plead guilty.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Like I said, FEER should simply boycott Singapore as a print media destination.
Refuse to defend and walk out. -
Actually no.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:that's right...admit defeat and pay damages. It's cheaper to plead guilty.
Since our court system is made of bumbling fools, they might well be able to escape everything.
I mean, I think Durai has already fled the country by now.
-
Whoever said anything about paying damages if you do not recognise the court's judgment?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:that's right...admit defeat and pay damages. It's cheaper to plead guilty.
There are many ways to skin a cat. -
There are many ways to pursue a debt tooOriginally posted by LazerLordz:Whoever said anything about paying damages if you do not recognise the court's judgment?
There are many ways to skin a cat. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
You are a moron!!!
Wake up! The verdict was passed long ago in favour of Singapore. Making wild allegations against the Singapore courts without a shred of evidence only resulted in dismissal of the case and millions of dollars in costs:
"Before the Supreme Court, Enernorth argued that to recognize judgments such as those from Singapore meant that Canadian judges were "mere functionaries or sheriffs for foreign legal systems, no matter how corrupt they are". Oakwell responded that it was for Canadian courts to decide on this, based on the criteria laid out by the courts. Among other things, it pointed out that Enernorth had neither alleged bias nor contested the Singapore courts' jurisdiction when the case was heard in Singapore. [b]When the case was moved to Canada, two of Enernorth's expert witnesses – including Francis Seow – had admitted they were unaware of any commercial case from Singapore that had been attacked as unfair or biased. In January 2007, the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, dismissed Enernorth's appeal and ordered it to bear the costs of the appeal.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakwell_Engineering_v._Enernorth_Industries
What a joker you are! Your posts do well to proclaim you an ignoramus par excellence [/b]
Hehehe....
You are missing the forest for the trees.
You mind can only understand linear issues, your brain has no convolutions.
Is it customary for you to consider those post that you have no smart replies to, as rants? You only selectively reply to those post that you "think" you have an upperhand. But when you fail to provide credible arguments like in this case again, you are most likely to denigrate this post to mere rants again.
Having a verdict in favour of Oakwell does not exonerate the judiciary from the other allegations brought about by Wingfield. I believe the Oakwell vs Enernorth was just a commercial transaction gone wrong. But the allegations made by the lawyer for the accused seems to have some basis.
Having a judiciary that is under the power of the executive branches of government will imply that the judiciary is subordinate to the government.
I believe the judiciary should be detached from the executive branches of government, an independent branch, with judges recommended by the Law Society and appointed by the President. Instead of the current recommendation by the PM and appointment by President.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2006/june/C43898.htm
According to Justice Gerald F. Day, "While Oakwell acknowledges that Enernorth has tendered some evidence relating to possible government interference in trials, all of that evidence applies only to political cases. The case at bar is a commercial case. There is no evidence that Singapore courts are biased when deciding a commercial case between private parties."
Does this mean that there are evidence to suggest that, Singapore courts are bias against any case that is non commercial (political)? -
Debts do not always mature.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There are many ways to pursue a debt too 
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
if you realise, it says between private parties also meaning if some guy or company linked to the government or pple in the government or whatever........
You are a moron!!!
Hehehe....
You are missing the forest for the trees.
You mind can only understand linear issues, your brain has no convolutions.
Is it customary for you to consider those post that you have no smart replies to, as rants? You only selectively reply to those post that you "think" you have an upperhand. But when you fail to provide credible arguments like in this case again, you are most likely to denigrate this post to mere rants again.
Having a verdict in favour of Oakwell does not exonerate the judiciary from the other allegations brought about by Wingfield. I believe the Oakwell vs Enernorth was just a commercial transaction gone wrong. But the allegations made by the lawyer for the accused seems to have some basis.
Having a judiciary that is under the power of the executive branches of government will imply that the judiciary is subordinate to the government.
I believe the judiciary should be detached from the executive branches of government, an independent branch, with judges recommended by the Law Society and appointed by the President. Instead of the current recommendation by the PM and appointment by President.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2006/june/C43898.htm
According to Justice Gerald F. Day, "While Oakwell acknowledges that Enernorth has tendered some evidence relating to possible government interference in trials, [b]all of that evidence applies only to political cases. The case at bar is a commercial case. There is no evidence that Singapore courts are biased when deciding a commercial case between private parties."
Does this mean that there are evidence to suggest that, Singapore courts are bias against any case that is non commercial (political)?
[/b] -
There are also many ways to avoid a debt.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Debts do not always mature.
Hehehe -
or to run away from debt.... ask Mr Yong..Originally posted by maurizio13:There are also many ways to avoid a debt.
Hehehe -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Why do you bother providing links to a delusional nincompoop who suffers from selective amnesia and schizophrenia?
You are a moron!!!
Hehehe....
You are missing the forest for the trees.
You mind can only understand linear issues, your brain has no convolutions.
Is it customary for you to consider those post that you have no smart replies to, as rants? You only selectively reply to those post that you "think" you have an upperhand. But when you fail to provide credible arguments like in this case again, you are most likely to denigrate this post to mere rants again.
Having a verdict in favour of Oakwell does not exonerate the judiciary from the other allegations brought about by Wingfield. I believe the Oakwell vs Enernorth was just a commercial transaction gone wrong. But the allegations made by the lawyer for the accused seems to have some basis.
Having a judiciary that is under the power of the executive branches of government will imply that the judiciary is subordinate to the government.
I believe the judiciary should be detached from the executive branches of government, an independent branch, with judges recommended by the Law Society and appointed by the President. Instead of the current recommendation by the PM and appointment by President.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2006/june/C43898.htm
According to Justice Gerald F. Day, "While Oakwell acknowledges that Enernorth has tendered some evidence relating to possible government interference in trials, [b]all of that evidence applies only to political cases. The case at bar is a commercial case. There is no evidence that Singapore courts are biased when deciding a commercial case between private parties."
Does this mean that there are evidence to suggest that, Singapore courts are bias against any case that is non commercial (political)?
[/b]
Just like the other muppet who goes by the pseudonym of a four-legged animal, you aren't going to get any sensible riposte for all your efforts in presenting the irrefutable truth.