Novel does not equate to Complex – is there a need for foreign senior counsel?

It is common place for clients to consider instructing foreign senior counsel (or King’s Counsel) for complex appeals, especially if they did not succeed at first instance. To facilitate such appointment, an application for ad hoc admission must be moved to permit the foreign senior counsel to appear in court.

Amongst the usual grounds in support of such application is that the issues arising are novel and complex; and further that the foreign senior counsel has specific expertise “beyond the competence of local counsel”.

In a recent Singapore case of Re Smith, Tom KC [2025] SGHC 9, Steven Chong JCA made interesting findings when rejecting an application for ad hoc admission:

• Firstly, that while an issue may be novel, it did not follow that it was complex beyond the competence of local counsel;

• Secondly, when a local lawyer is assessed to be sufficiently competent to represent a party in any given litigation, the same lawyer cannot be considered any less competent to address identical issues on appeal simply because he did not prevail in the court below. In the circumstances, the necessity of admitting foreign senior counsel is less apparent.

• Finally, the suitability of ad hoc admissions should be viewed through the prism of “need” as opposed to preference or desirability. It was also pointed out that the touchstone of admission was “need” and not “equality”. Justice Chong also reiterated an observation made in an earlier case that “it cannot be the case that a litigant is entitled to be represented by foreign senior counsel simply because the opposing party is represented by senior counsel”

The analysis carried out above is a useful reference for anyone considering instructing foreign senior counsel (or King’s Counsel). Any litigant considering such appointment should do so at the earliest possible juncture or at first instance. This would augment the argument that there is a need for foreign senior counsel to address the complex issues in the suit. Any delay to this process would inevitably give rise to the counter argument that the contemplated appointment of foreign senior counsel is merely preference rather than necessity.

See grounds of judgment here:

https://tinyurl.com/yc8jpb3a