Segal J
1
220301 - In the matter of an application for the Limited Admission of Luka Krsljanin – FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) – Judgment
IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS
FINANCIAL SERVICES DIVISION
CAUSE NO. FSD 203 0F 2020 (NSJ)
IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ACT (2015 REVISION)
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE LIMITED ADMISSION OF LUKA
KRSLJANIN AS AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS IN FSD CAUSE
NUMBER 203 OF 2020 (NSJ)
ON THE PAPERS
Before:
The Hon. Mr Justice Segal
Draft judgment
circulated:
25 February 2022
Judgment
delivered:
1 March 2022
HEADNOTE
Application for the limited admission of junior counsel – the need for unusual and special circumstances
– establishing that the proceedings concerned are large and complex is insufficient of itself - the need
to consider the availability of local attorneys and the resources available in the local legal services
market as well as the steps taken to engage and the role to be given to Cayman attorneys – the
relevance of the limited capacity of the local law firm involved
JUDGMENT
Introduction
1.
This is my judgment on the application by Mr Luka Krsljanin pursuant to section 4(1) of the
Legal Practitioners Act (2015 Revision) (the Act) to be admitted to practise as an Attorney-at-
Law in the Cayman Islands for the limited purpose of appearing on behalf of Mr Jafar, the
2
220301 - In the matter of an application for the Limited Admission of Luka Krsljanin – FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) – Judgment
plaintiff in cause No. FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) (the Proceedings). Mr Krsljanin is a well-
respected junior barrister practising at Blackstone Chambers in London, with particular
expertise in discovery issues (who was called in 2013). He has been instructed by Nelsons, the
Cayman Islands attorneys for Mr Jafar to advise in relation to the Proceedings.
2.
The application was dated 11 October 2021 (before the coming into effect of the 2022 revision
of the Act) and was supported by the First and Second Affidavits of Mr. Steven Barrie, a partner
in Nelsons, sworn on 11 October 2021 and 2 December 2021 respectively. Nelsons had also filed
written submissions dated 2 December 2021 and supplemental written submissions dated 15
February 2022 (no submissions were originally filed with the application and Mr Barrie’s First
Affidavit).
3.
The application has had a rather unfortunate history. It was only passed to me on 3 February 2022
and then without Mr Barrie’s Second Affidavit. The Second Affidavit had been filed in response
to a request by the Court, following receipt of the application, for further evidence and
submissions. The application had initially been reviewed by the office of the Clerk of Court prior
to being assigned to a judge and Nelsons had been told that since the application was for the
limited admission of junior counsel, the evidence initially filed in support and the grounds relied
on were wholly inadequate (a point reiterated by me in an email to Nelsons dated 4 February
2022 sent before I had seen Mr Barrie’s Second Affidavit).
4.
On 18 February 2022, I informed Nelsons of my decision as follows:
“I have now had an opportunity to read Nelsons’ further written submissions dated 15
February, responding to my request for further submissions of the same date.
While I have not found the arguments made in those submissions persuasive, I have
decided to grant Mr Krsljanin’s application primarily on the basis that the evidence shows
that (a) steps have been taken to base Mr Jafar’s legal team in (and to re-locate it to)
Cayman, and to engage Nelsons as Mr Jafar’s lead attorneys, and that Mr Krsljanin’s
involvement is required to facilitate this (so that his role, with Mr Bloch QC, is and will
be to support and not displace the Cayman legal team) and (b) it has not been possible to
find a local lawyer, despite apparently genuine and serious efforts within a reasonable
time frame, who would be able to fulfil the role to be played by Mr Krsljanin. It seems to
me that the principle referred to in section 35(4)(c) of the Legal Services Act is relevant to
the exercise of the Court’s discretion and is to be taken into account when the Court is
considering whether to grant an application for limited admission.
3
220301 - In the matter of an application for the Limited Admission of Luka Krsljanin – FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) – Judgment
I am in the process of preparing a short judgment setting out my reasons in a little more
detail and shall distribute this shortly.
5.
I now set out my reasons in more detail.
The Evidence
6.
Mr Barrie’s evidence dealt with the following matters: the Proceedings; the number of lawyers
working and available to work on the case at Nelsons; the other legal advisers (including law
firms and barristers) who had been and were now instructed to advise Mr Jafar in relation to the
Proceedings; the legal teams advising the other parties to the Proceedings and Mr Krsljanin’s role
in the legal team advising Mr Jafar. Mr Barrie concluded (at [36] of his Second Affidavit) that
“In the circumstances, I consider it to be reasonable for Mr Jafar to retain Junior Counsel
from London and accordingly request that Mr Krsljanin be granted limited admission for
that purpose.” In his First Affidavit, Mr Barrie had said (at [6]) that “In my view, this is a
case which requires both leading counsel and junior counsel given its scale and complexity.
Given the limited number of leading counsel presently admitted in the Cayman Islands, the
number of parties in the proceedings and the broad scope for conflict of local counsel in light
of the scale of this case (and associated proceedings), I am of the view that this is a matter
in which it is necessary and appropriate for Mr. Luka Krsljanin to be admitted to the
Cayman bar to act in these proceedings.”
7.
Mr Barrie provided brief details of the Proceedings (a summary of the Proceedings can be found
in my judgment dated 10 August 2021 dealing with applications for security for costs). He
pointed out that the Proceedings were large and complex. They involved a very large claim (for
approximately US$350 million) arising out of a complex and multi-jurisdictional fraud, that were
being tried together and jointly case managed with other related proceedings and required a large
legal team with specialised knowledge and expertise that was able to devote substantial time to
the litigation. This was, he said, evidenced by the size and scale of the discovery exercise that
was currently contemplated. He noted (at [14] of his Second Affidavit) that “Going forward,
there will inevitably be a mammoth disclosure exercise to undertake requiring substantial
input from clients, counsel and attorneys.”
8.
Mr Barrie noted that other large law firms had previously been instructed by Mr Jafar in
relation to the collapse of the Abraaj Group. Initially Mr. Jafar had instructed Gibson Dunn
in London to advise him on what claims he could bring and where would be the best place
4
220301 - In the matter of an application for the Limited Admission of Luka Krsljanin – FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) – Judgment
to bring them. He had also retained Kobre & Kim in the Cayman Islands to represent his
interests in the liquidation proceedings relating to the Abraaj Group companies. In early
2019 he had instructed Jones Day in London to advise on the recovery of the loans which
Mr Jafar alleges he made and when it became clear that proceedings would need to be
commenced in this jurisdiction Nelsons were instructed as Mr Jafar’s attorneys of record.
Subsequently, Mr Jafar had taken steps to ensure that main legal work in relation to the
Proceedings would be done in the Cayman Islands. As Mr Barrie said (at [20] in his Second
Affidavit):
“… [Mr Jafar had] sought to move the base of operations and the bulk of the workload
from the Jones Day team in London to Nelsons. Given Jones Day's extensive knowledge of
the case, and significant resources, initially they had remained very much involved.
Had this not been the case, a small firm such as ours would not have had immediate
capacity to accept instructions of this nature. However, Jones Day's involvement in
the case was gradually reduced up to the point where, as of the end of October 2021
they provide only minimal consultation services and have no further role in the day-to-
day conduct of the Proceedings.”
9.
Mr Barrie also provided details of the full legal team that is now advising the Plaintiff in
relation to the Proceedings. At Nelsons, Mr Harris, together with a senior and junior
associate were spending substantial amounts of time on the case and were occasionally
assisted by another associate. Mr Bloch QC, also of Blackstone Chambers, and Mr Luka
Krsljanin were instructed (and replaced another silk and junior barrister who had originally been
instructed but became too busy) and were fully involved in the case. They were all supported by
Mr Hooper, who was Mr Jafar’s in-house counsel based in Sharjah, acting on behalf of Mr Jafar.
10.
Mr Barrie explained that Nelsons had limited resources and had struggled to allocate
sufficient attorneys to the case. He said that Nelsons is a “small firm with seven full time
attorneys, three consultants and three administrative staff”, that four of the attorneys practise
in litigation and that three attorneys were currently assigned to the Proceedings (with Mr John
Harris being the partner with overall responsibility for the instruction). He said that “Nelsons
has found the resourcing of this matter to be challenging” and that while there were other
members of the firm who were not generally working on this case, they had other client work
and commitments and were not therefore available to provide the additional full-time
resource that was needed. Mr Barrie confirmed that Nelsons had sought to recruit and
employ additional attorneys to supplement their team but had been unable to do so. He said
as follows:
5
220301 - In the matter of an application for the Limited Admission of Luka Krsljanin – FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) – Judgment
“23. ….. we have for the last several months been seeking to recruit one, or even two
new junior associates from within the Cayman Islands, ideally around three to
five years' call. We reached the point of making an offer to one candidate and
it appeared he was going to join but ultimately his existing firm persuaded him
to stay with them. We are continuing our efforts to recruit locally but, having
been unsuccessful to date we have also begun to look overseas.
24.
We are not alone in finding the recruitment of attorneys to be very difficult in
the current economic climate. We have interviewed candidates both within the
jurisdiction and overseas to seek to fill this role, but to date have been unable
to locate anyone with the requisite qualifications and experience.”
11.
Mr Barrie explained the role that Mr Krsljanin plays as a member of the wider legal team. He is
said to be “a key part of the existing team” who works closely with Mr Bloch QC, with Nelsons
and with the client team based in the UAE. Mr Barrie said that Mr Bloch QC had advised
that from his perspective it was essential to have a junior available to assist him in the same
geographical location and the same time zone. Mr Barrie said that Mr Krsljanin would play
a particularly important role in the discovery process:
“The review process of discovery in the Proceedings will be extensive, together with the
various legal arguments on the issue which are bound to arise. It will be beyond the
capability of the Nelsons team as it presently stands to complete this without
assistance. Even if we are successful in recruiting, as hoped, the standard notice
period within the Cayman Islands is in the region of three months and if we are
obliged to recruit from overseas, we also have to factor in the time it takes for
someone to get themselves in a position to relocate to a new country.”
12.
Mr Barrie also referred to the legal counsel teams instructed by the other parties to the
Proceedings and noted that a junior barrister from London (Ms Sarah Tresman) who was
advising one of the parties had been granted limited admission to appear in the Proceedings.
The Submissions
13.
In their written submissions, Nelsons:
(a).
referred to section 4(1) of the Act, the requirements of Practice Direction 4 of 2012
(PD4), the judgment of the Chief Justice in 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]) (AHAB) and my judgment in In the matter of an application by Mr Ciaran Keller
to be admitted to practise as an attorney-at-law in the Cayman Islands (unreported, 1
6
220301 - In the matter of an application for the Limited Admission of Luka Krsljanin – FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) – Judgment
April 2021, cause no. Att 29 of 2021) (Keller).
(b).
submitted that the matters to which the Court should have regard on an application under
section 4(1) of the Act were (or at least included) those competing public interest
considerations which the Chief Justice in AHAB said it was appropriate to take into
account, namely:
(i).
the availability of local lawyers.
(ii).
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.
(iii).
the party’s need for adequate legal representation and the nature and complexity
of the case.
(iv).
the expertise and experience of the counsel seeking admission.
(v).
the proposed counsel’s involvement in the conduct of the litigation.
(vi).
whether the work would be conducted in, or from within, the Cayman Islands.
(c).
said that in Keller I had “emphasised the high threshold requirement that there be
unusual and special circumstances to warrant the admission of junior counsel” (but
Nelsons did not mention or quote paragraph 7 of PD4 which states that “the limited
admission of junior counsel, solicitors or the equivalent will not normally be granted
except in unusual and special circumstances which must be fully set out in the Attorney's
Affidavit” – nor for that matter did Mr Barrie mention it).
(d).
argued that the high threshold was met in this case having regard not only to “the
important factor of the scale and complexity of the Proceedings” but also taking account
of the following further factors:
(i).
Mr Krsljanin’s involvement did not reduce the workload undertaken and to be
undertaken by Cayman based attorneys since the Nelsons team was at full, and
7
220301 - In the matter of an application for the Limited Admission of Luka Krsljanin – FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) – Judgment
had been unable to expand its, capacity. His involvement did not reduce the
amount of work to be done by the Nelsons team and other Cayman attorneys were
not available to be brought in to join that team. Nelsons had tried but to date failed
to recruit additional attorneys (it appeared that since any new recruits would need
to give at least three-month’s notice, even if Nelsons were able to find a new
attorney, it would be a considerable period, during which important developments
in the proceedings would be occurring, before they would be active). Instead Mr
Krsljanin would provide crucial support for Nelsons’ Cayman based team.
(ii).
it was important for firms in the Cayman Islands of Nelsons’ size (in order to be
able to compete with larger firms and to take on larger cases) to be able to bring
in junior barristers such as Mr Krsljanin to support their work in large and complex
cases such as the Proceedings and to give them time to expand their local resources
to be able to manage such cases (to bridge the gap between taking on the case with
their existing and limited resources and the point at which they had been able to
recruit new Cayman attorneys to do the required work, which was bound to take
some time).
(iii).
Mr Jafar had increasingly sought to ensure that legal work was carried out by the
Cayman Islands team and not by overseas attorneys. While this was motivated by
a desire to ensure cost recoverability it had the effect of increasing the volume of
work to be done by and the demands on the Cayman based attorneys.
(iv).
while Mr Krsljanin would continue to be based in London, it was anticipated that
he would travel to and be working in Cayman on a fairly regular basis in view of
the fact that there were likely to be CMC’s every three months and the trial would
last for many weeks.
(v).
Mr Krsljanin had the specialist expertise and experience needed for the
Proceedings and was an integral part of the legal team who worked closely on a
daily basis with the Cayman Islands team and acted as an important conduit
between the Cayman Islands team and the client and his supporting team based in
the UAE.
8
220301 - In the matter of an application for the Limited Admission of Luka Krsljanin – FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) – Judgment
14.
Following receipt of Nelsons’ written submissions, I asked Nelsons to address a further issue
which it appeared to me had not been dealt with in their submissions. I noted that in paragraph
13 of my judgment in Keller I had referred for completeness to section 35(4)(c) of the Legal
Services Act, which was at that time and is still not yet in force. That subsection states as
follows (underlining added):
“in the case of an application to allow a person, other than a Queen’s Counsel, or
equivalent, and practising as such in any court of a jurisdiction referred to in section 32(3),
to appear, to advise or to act in a specified suit or matter, that there are exceptional
circumstances to justify approving the application and for this purpose, the fact that the
applicant law firm does not itself have sufficient capacity to act or to advise in the specified
suit or matter shall not be considered an exceptional circumstance.”
I requested that Nelsons make submissions on whether the sub-section, and in particular the
underlined words, represented a codification of or statement based on existing policy or law such
that the principle set out in the underlined words was to be applied or taken into account by the
Court on an application under section 4(1) of the Act, even before section 35(4)(c) had come into
force, and if it was to be applied or taken into account, how it affected the current application in
circumstances where Nelsons’ limited resources and its position as a small firm were relied on in
support of the application (albeit as one of a number of relevant factors).
15.
Nelsons responded in their supplemental written submissions. They argued that section 35(4)(c)
(which might never come into force) did not represent a codification of the existing law since
under the current law the requirement was to show “unusual and special circumstances” rather
than “exceptional circumstances” and since Parliament had used different words it was to be
inferred that the meaning of the terms was different. Furthermore, the principle referred to in the
underlined words represented a departure from the existing law as explained by the Chief Justice
in AHAB since currently the Court must take into account a number of factors including the
availability of local lawyers and promoting the growth of the legal profession. Alternatively, even
if the principle represented a factor that the Court could and should currently take into account,
the lack of capacity of the Cayman law firm concerned was one of the factors to be considered
by the Court, even if lack of capacity did not suffice of itself. Nelsons said that in the present case
their lack of resources was not the only ground on which the application was based and submitted
that the application should not be refused in principle because of it. There were other factors
detailed in Mr Barrie’s affidavits which should also be taken into account, including the logistical
difficulties caused by the different time zones, the size and complexity of the case, Mr Krsljanin’s
9
220301 - In the matter of an application for the Limited Admission of Luka Krsljanin – FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) – Judgment
particular experience in issues of discovery, and the fact that the other parties have also found it
necessary to instruct junior counsel (with Ms Tresman having been given limited admission).
Nelsons also pointed out that in AHAB, the Chief Justice had in fact allowed the limited admission
of two of the seven foreign juniors in respect of whom the application was made, suggesting that
the approach to be taken was one of balancing rather than of absolutes.
Discussion and the reasons for my decision
16.
The language of section 4(1) of the Act and PD4 (in particular paragraph 7 of PD4) is set out and
explained in AHAB and Keller and does not need to be repeated here. But I do think it that is
helpful to highlight some of the comments made in AHAB and Keller on the approach to be taken
by the Court on an application for the limited admission of junior counsel.
17.
In AHAB, the Chief Justice said as follows (underlining added):
“23 There are well-recognized practical reasons for the public interest considerations
similarly identified at para. 5 and at (a) and (b) above. They include the fact that
the many law firms and practitioners within the Islands are usually quite able to
provide the kind of professional services needed for even the most complex kinds of
civil and commercial litigation. In order to do so, they must commit to the
maintenance of extensive resources in terms of personnel and capital while
competing among themselves. It must be assumed that their continued ability to do
so would be significantly impaired if they had generally to compete with foreign
lawyers as well. The routine granting of applications such as these would therefore
be injurious to the interests of the local profession.
24.
And so, s.4 of the [Act] must be construed as intended, among other things, to
protect the local profession from undue foreign competition. This, it must be
emphasized, is not only for the sake of the profession: it is also in the public interest
that there is a strong and viable body of legal practitioners available to meet the
public’s need for legal advice and representation.
25
While the [Act] (and [PD4]) will regard more liberally a litigant’s wish to instruct
leading counsel from overseas, recognizing the relatively small and select cadre of
silks available in the Islands, a different view must be taken of a desire to bring in
junior counsel and solicitors from overseas. As already noted, these latter groups
will typically bring with them the kind of experience and expertise which is in ready
supply from among the local practitioners and it is for this reason that the LPL, the
GCR, O.68 costs rules and Practice Direction No. 4 of 2012 are together construed
as imposing a public policy requirement that unusual and special circumstances
must be shown before such applications will be granted.”
10
220301 - In the matter of an application for the Limited Admission of Luka Krsljanin – FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) – Judgment
18.
In Keller I said as follows:
“14.
Each application for limited admission of a junior counsel requires a rigorous
examination of all the relevant circumstances to see whether it can be justified,
having regard to the need for the applicant currently to show “unusual and special
circumstances” and taking into account the criteria identified by the Chief Justice
in AHAB (and, once the Legal Services Act has come into force, having the regard
for the need for the applicant to show “exceptional circumstances” and taking into
account the criteria identified in section 35(5)).
15.
The precondition that unusual and special circumstances must be shown makes it
clear that there is a high threshold to be crossed before the Court will accede to
such an application (and the new statutory language of exceptional circumstances,
which seems to me to be a statutory codification of the approach in PD4, emphasises
that the precondition will not easily be satisfied). There is effectively a presumption
against the limited admission of junior counsel.
16.
It seems to me that the complexity and scale of the litigation are not of themselves
sufficient. They are important factors to be taken into account but the Court must
also weigh and balance the other criteria when generally assessing whether the
limited admission can be justified. The role to be performed by the junior barrister,
the availability of similarly and suitably qualified local attorneys who could fill that
role, the steps that have been taken to locate such attorneys and the balance of the
legal team engaged to prepare for and conduct the litigation will, for example, also
be of considerable weight. It will be relevant for the Court to understand whether
efforts were made at the earliest opportunity to involve local attorneys in the
development and preparation of the case to be presented in the proceedings before
the Court.
……..
18.
Of course, the effect of granting an application for limited admission is only to
permit the participation of and recovery of the legal fees of the junior counsel from
and after the time at which the application is granted. The focus of the Court’s
attention must be on the role to be performed by junior counsel and the extent to
which that role can be justified having regard to the relevant factors. Where the role
and the extent of the involvement of junior counsel is clear and limited, for example
because junior counsel is to be admitted in order to allow him or her to travel to
Cayman in order to make final preparations for and appear at the listed trial of the
claim, then it may be easier to justify the granting of limited admission.
19.
As is clear from these passages, the Court is focussed, when considering whether to grant
limited admission to junior counsel from overseas, on the need to avoid undermining the
competitive position of the local law firms by admitting foreign practitioners to do work for
which there is a ready supply of suitably qualified local attorneys. As I noted in Keller, the
11
220301 - In the matter of an application for the Limited Admission of Luka Krsljanin – FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) – Judgment
“role to be performed by the junior barrister, the availability of similarly and suitably qualified
local attorneys who could fill that role, the steps that have been taken to locate such attorneys
and the balance of the legal team engaged to prepare for and conduct the litigation will … be
of considerable weight.” The various competing public interest considerations which the
Solicitor General had identified, and which the Chief Justice considered appropriate to be taken
into account by the Court, in AHAB must, in my view, be understood and applied against this
background and in this context. So must PD4’s requirement that there be “unusual and special
circumstances.”
20.
While the Court is concerned to ensure that the relevant party is properly represented by suitably
qualified lawyers of their choice, where there is a “ready supply” of local attorneys who are
properly qualified and available, then the party will generally in the case of junior counsel not be
permitted to have the costs benefits associated with limited admission (of course, the party retains
the right to instruct junior counsel but if he chooses to do so when the local Bar is able to provide
suitable advice and assistance, he will be unable to recover the costs of that junior counsel in a
taxation on the standard basis).
21.
But in some cases, there will be a genuine issue as to whether, in view of the complexities and
challenges of a particular piece of litigation and the resources and skill set of the available
Cayman Islands attorneys, the local Bar can be said to provide, or have readily available, a
sufficient number of suitably qualified and experienced attorneys to meet the party’s reasonable
needs for legal advice and advocacy. In the case of silks, the Court will readily accept that there
is a justified need to look to and instruct Leading Counsel in London because of their specialist
skills in advocacy and expertise in particular areas of the law and the limited number of similarly
senior and specialised advocates based in the Islands.
22.
Equally, there may be cases in which, there is a similar deficit between local resources and
reasonable needs in relation to junior counsel. But in most (the usual) cases, the Cayman Island
Bar will be able to meet that need. The size and complexities of the case will not, on their own,
justify the limited admission of junior counsel (as I pointed out in Keller). There must in addition
be some reason shown why the local Bar cannot provide the required advice and assistance. There
must be a link between the size and complexity of the case and a demonstrated limit in the
capacity or expertise of the local Bar. To justify the limited admission of junior counsel, it must
12
220301 - In the matter of an application for the Limited Admission of Luka Krsljanin – FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) – Judgment
be shown that in the circumstances of the case, there is good reason to believe that the local Bar
cannot provide the requisite expertise or resources to do the job required.
23.
It also seems to me that the Court is conclude that the limited capacity of the local law firm
concerned is not of itself sufficient to justify the limited admission of junior counsel. In my view,
the statutory discretion given by section 4(1) of the Act and the direction to limit the admission
of junior counsel to cases of unusual and special circumstances, already allows the Court to regard
the limited capacity of one firm as not being determinative and not necessarily of great weight.
The policy which informs PD4 and the Court’s approach is focussed on protecting and preserving
the local Bar as a whole and not firms who have taken on cases for which they have insufficient
local resources. So it seems to me that the principle referred to in section 35(4)(c) of the Legal
Services Act is one which the Court is able in appropriate cases to take into account and is already
reflected in the current law, even before the Legal Services Act comes into force. Having said
that, the Court will be sympathetic to the needs of smaller local firms that find themselves in
difficulty because they are struggling to staff a case, where the firm concerned has not acted
irresponsibility in accepting instructions in a case that they cannot deal with (or perhaps where,
because of the number of other local firms already involved, conflicts prevent the party concerned
from instructing other firms) and taken adequate and timely steps to employ additional local
attorneys to fill the gap. What will clearly be unacceptable is for the party concerned to instruct
a small local law firm and then seek the limited admission of junior counsel (and indeed more
than one junior counsel) on the basis that the local firm involved has insufficient capacity to deal
with the case.
24.
In the present application, Nelsons, in presenting the case for Mr Krsljanin’s limited admission,
placed too much weight on the size and complexity of the Proceedings. I had the sense that they
thought that there was almost a presumption that junior counsel should be admitted in any large
and complex proceedings. Nonetheless, after being requested to think again and file further
submissions and evidence, they did properly and helpfully focus on the particular circumstances
of this case which related to the manner in and extent to which Cayman attorneys were being
used and instructed by Mr Jafar, the resources available in this jurisdiction and the steps that they
had taken to use local attorneys before seeking to justify the limited admission of Mr Krsljanin.
It then became clear that Mr Jafar had taken action to ensure that the legal centre of gravity of
the team advising him on the Proceedings was in the Cayman Islands; that the work previously
being done by the solicitors from London had been largely stopped, so that work that could be
13
220301 - In the matter of an application for the Limited Admission of Luka Krsljanin – FSD 203 of 2020 (NSJ) – Judgment
done by the Cayman team was in fact being done by them; that Nelsons had engaged in a good
faith effort (“for the last several months”) to recruit additional local attorneys to provide the
additional resources they needed; that they had been unable to recruit any new staff and that local
market conditions appeared to have contributed to this inability to recruit. These facts and matters
show that there are inadequate resources available in the jurisdiction to meet Mr Jafar’s
reasonable needs for legal advice and support and that reasonable efforts have been made to
engage local attorneys to the maximum extent practicable and to fill the gaps in Nelsons’ current
resources. In such circumstances, and in a situation where, as here, it has been demonstrated that
the proceedings in question demand substantial legal resources and that the junior counsel whose
admission is sought has the required expertise and experience and will play an important and
useful role as part of the legal team whose main members are based here, unusual and special
circumstances have been shown to exist and the case for granting the limited admission applicable
is, in my view, made out. It did occur to me that, since Mr Barrie had said that his firm was
continuing to look for new recruits, so that the gaps in Nelsons’ resources might be filled in due
course, I should admit Mr Krsljanin only for the period before that had been done. But in my
view that would not be right, at least in this case, where it remains unclear how long it will take
for Nelsons to recruit additional staff and where it is unlikely that aggregate costs will be
increased if Mr Krsljanin retains (indeed it is likely to be more cost-effective to allow Mr
Krsljanin to retain) his limited admission for the duration of the Proceedings.
25.
I would add that, as I noted in Keller (see [20] of the judgment), the mere fact that another junior
counsel was granted limited admission to act for another party to the Proceedings on the basis of
a different application (particularly one about which the Court on this application has been told
nothing) is to be given little or no weight on this application.
The Hon. Mr Justice Segal
Judge of the Grand Court, Cayman Islands
1 March 2022