Asif J
240306 – In Re Limited Admission of Alexander James Kenneth Potts KC. – ATT 0026 of 2024 - Judgment
Cause No: ATT2024-0026
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
CIVIL DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT (2022 REVISION)
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LIMITED ADMISSION OF
ALEXANDER JAMES KENNETH POTTS KC
Appearances:
Mr Erick Bodden of Conyers Dill & Pearman for the Applicant
Before:
The Honourable Justice Jalil Asif KC
Heard:
6 March 2024
Judgment:
6 March 2024
CASE SUMMARY
(not part of judgment)
Application for limited admission pursuant to section 4 of the Legal Practitioners Act
(2022 Revision) and Practice Direction 4 of 2012—Requirement for evidence to
address any departure from requirements of section 4 or the Practice Direction—
Undertaking to sign Register of Attorneys when applicant is not present in
jurisdiction.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
240306 – In Re Limited Admission of Alexander James Kenneth Potts KC. – ATT 0026 of 2024 - Judgment
1.
This is my judgment in cause number ATT2024-0026, an application for the limited admission
of Mr Alexander James Kenneth Potts KC to appear as leading counsel in a matter currently
proceeding in the Financial Services Division, FSD2024-0056 (JAJ). The application was ably
made by Mr Erik Bodden of Conyers. This judgment addresses certain points of general
importance in relation to applications for limited admission of attorneys at law.
2.
Mr Bodden referred me to s.4 of the Legal Practitioners Act (2022 Revision), Practice
Direction No.4 of 2012 and the judgment of Justice Doyle in Re the Limited Admission of
Jeremy Edward Goldring QC (unreported, 8 August 2022, ATT2022-0121) in support of the
application.
3.
Other useful statements regarding the approach to be adopted when making applications for
limited admission are set out in the judgment of Acting Justice Foster in Re Certain
Applications for Limited Admission as an Attorney-at-Law [2009 CILR 41] and the judgment
of Justice Segal in Palladyne International Asset Management BV v Upper Brook (unreported,
26 September 2016, FSD2016-0068). Furthermore, in my view, it is more useful to consider
the judgment of Justice Doyle in Re Mumford QC (unreported, 14 March 2022, ATT2022-
0030-33) than his judgment in Re Goldring QC.
4.
It is important in any application for limited admission that the requirements of s.4 of the Legal
Practitioners Act and the Practice Direction are complied with. It has been said on many
occasions by different judges that an application for limited admission is not a rubberstamping
exercise. The court has to make a positive decision to exercise its discretion to grant the
application for limited admission. In order to do so, the court must be presented with sufficient
appropriate evidence that addresses all of the applicable requirements of the Act and the
Practice Direction.
5.
In addition to the points which other judges have already raised in their helpful and detailed
judgments on this topic, I add the following.
240306 – In Re Limited Admission of Alexander James Kenneth Potts KC. – ATT 0026 of 2024 - Judgment
6.
First, in any matter in which there is someone who has been served with the underlying
proceedings or is otherwise actively involved in the cause or matter, it is important that the
application for limited admission and supporting materials are served on them in good time
before the hearing. This is so that they can consider whether they wish to oppose the
application. This requirement underpins the importance of complying with the timetable set
out in the Practice Direction in order to give such a person sufficient time to consider their
position and to act, if so advised.
7.
Secondly, where there is an obstacle to swearing the applicant’s affidavit in good time and that
hold-up impinges on the timetable set out in the Practice Direction, I remind applicants that
the Practice Direction indicates that the papers should be provided to the court with an
approved unsworn version of the applicant’s affidavit, with the sworn affidavit to follow.
Similarly, service of the application on any other person should not be delayed because the
applicant has not yet sworn their affidavit – again, the approved unsworn draft should be
provided in good time with the sworn version to follow.
8.
It has been suggested in some cases (but not in this one) that a reason for applicants not being
able to comply with the timetable in the Practice Direction is that the applicant has been
waiting for a temporary work permit to be issued, and that the application for the temporary
work permit cannot be submitted until the Registry has allocated a cause number for the
underlying proceedings. There may be some attorneys who believe that the provision of a
cause number cannot happen until a date for the hearing has been fixed. This is not correct and
is not a good reason for delaying in finalising and filing the application for limited admission.
The electronic filing system now in use at court means that the Registry will allocate a cause
number as soon as papers in the underlying proceedings are filed and processed. That cause
number should be immediately visible to counsel for the applicant, which should allow the
application for a temporary work permit to be submitted and determined promptly. If for any
reason the cause number is not immediately visible, it can be provided by the Registry.
240306 – In Re Limited Admission of Alexander James Kenneth Potts KC. – ATT 0026 of 2024 - Judgment
9.
The judgment of Justice Segal in Palladyne International Asset Management v Upper Brook
draws attention to the requirement in paragraph 9 of the Practice Direction that the applicant
must sign the Register of Admitted Attorneys “…before he makes any appearance in the
specified suit or matter in which it is proposed the Applicant should appear.” This is obviously
of great importance where the application is made with the applicant appearing by videolink
and the substantive hearing is also intended to proceed by videolink – often immediately after
the conclusion of the limited admission application.
10.
In any matter where the timetable and the other requirements of the Practice Direction have
not been complied with, the affidavit in support of the application must address this and
explain why, and why the court should grant the application nonetheless. As mentioned above,
this is essential so that the court has the necessary evidence properly before it to enable it to
exercise its discretion.
11.
Similarly, in cases where it is intended that the applicant should be allowed to appear in the
substantive suit or matter before they sign the Register of Attorneys, it is essential that the
evidence in support of the application addresses why an exception to paragraph 9 of the
Practice Direction is sought. In particular, the evidence must explain why it is not reasonably
practicable for counsel to travel to the Islands for the substantive hearing and provide the date
when the applicant intends to travel to the Islands to sign the Register. The applicant must
undertake to sign the Register, which should be done within weeks rather than months
following the hearing, and with a long stop date specified in the Order granting limited
admission. The applicant should also formally undertake to abide by their professional duties
and obligations, and that they will be subject to the professional discipline requirements
applicable to an attorney who has been granted general admission as an attorney at law and
officer of the Court. It is helpful if the applicant confirms that they have read and are familiar
with the CILPA Code of Conduct.
12.
Turning to this particular case, I am satisfied from the materials I have seen that there is an
urgent application to appoint provisional liquidators in the cause for which Mr Potts KC’s
admission is sought.
240306 – In Re Limited Admission of Alexander James Kenneth Potts KC. – ATT 0026 of 2024 - Judgment
13.
The timetable in the Practice Direction was not complied with in this case. Although there is
scant material in the affidavits to explain this, I have seen the correspondence between the
applicant and the court regarding the listing of the underlying proceedings and also the listing
of this application. It does appear to me that Mr Potts and his attorneys have done their best to
move matters forward as quickly as they can in the unusual circumstances of the underlying
case. I am satisfied that there is good reason for the failure to adhere to the requirements of the
Practice Direction.
14.
I am also indeed satisfied that it is Conyers’ client’s wish that Mr Potts KC is instructed to
come to the Cayman Islands to appear in the underlying matter and that he is in possession of
the appropriate qualifications and expertise in matters of this sort, so that it is appropriate for
me to grant his limited admission.
15.
As I indicated in the course of argument, notwithstanding the content of this short judgment,
I do not intend to criticise Conyers in their conduct of this particular application, but it is
important to reinforce that the requirements of the Practice Direction need to be observed and,
where it is not possible to observe them, to ensure that those failures are addressed in the
evidence, so that the Court has material on which it can properly exercise its discretion.
Dated 6 March 2024
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE ASIF KC
JUDGE OF THE GRAND COURT