Arbitration : Procedure - Representation by counsel - Non-member of Sabah bar representing party in arbitration proceedings held in Sabah - Whether ad hoc admission to Sabah bar required to be obtained - Whether Sabah advocates having exclusive right of representation in Sabah - Barristers and solicitors in England not having exclusive right of representation in arbitration proceedings - Whether same practice applied to Sabah advocates - Interpretation of "exclusive right to practise" - Advocates Ordinance 1953 (Sabah Cap 2), ss 2(1)(a), (b), 8(1)

Legal Profession : Admission - Representation by counsel - Non-member of Sabah bar representing party in arbitration proceedings held in Sabah - Whether ad hoc admission to Sabah bar required to be obtained - Whether Sabah advocates having exclusive right of representation in Sabah - Barristers and solicitors in England not having exclusive right of representation in arbitration proceedings - Whether same practice applied to Sabah advocates - Interpretation of "exclusive right to practise" - Advocates Ordinance 1953 (Sabah Cap 2), ss 2(1)(a), (b), 8(1).

There were two appeals before the Federal Court. Both appeals stemmed from an application made by the respondent in the High Court seeking for a declaration that foreign lawyers who were not advocates within the meaning of the Advocates Ordinance 1953 (Sabah Cap 2) ('the Ordinance') were not prohibited from representing parties in arbitration proceedings in the state of Sabah and that the Ordinance had no application to arbitration proceedings in the state. The said application was made following an issue raised in the arbitration proceedings between the parties concerned on whether one Mr Lam Ko Luen, a partner of Messrs Shook Lin & Bok from Kuala Lumpur appointed to act as co-counsel for the respondent party was required to obtain an ad hoc admission to the Sabah bar to represent in the arbitration proceedings. The High Court held that the ad hoc admission was required. The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's decision, the result of which led to the appeals herein. The question before the Federal Court was whether s 8(1) of the Ordinance read together with s 2(1)(a) and (b) thereof conferred Sabah advocates the exclusive right of representation in arbitration proceedings held in Sabah notwithstanding that barristers and solicitors in England did not have such right of representation in arbitration proceedings.