The High Court today ruled that English barrister Cherie Blair cannot appear before the Federal Court to act for construction company Fawziah Holdings which is seeking to defend a RM65 million award it obtained from a toll concessionaire Metramac Holdings Sdn Bhd.

The matter, however, has not ended as Blair's lead counsel Dr Cyrus Das said that a notice of appeal will be filed tomorrow to challenge the decision at the Federal Court

In dismissing Blair's application to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor on a ad-hoc basis to represent Fawziah Holdings, Justice Wan Afrah Wan Ibrahim said that although Blair was an eminent Queen's Counsel, she has no special qualifications to argue on judicial bias which was one of the issues that will be heard during the appeal.

Blair, who is the British prime minister's wife, was ordered her to pay costs to the opponents of her application.

Blair - known professionally as Cherie Booth - was sought by Fawziah Holdings to argue on the issue of judicial bias which formed the main crux of the appeal which is scheduled for June 14.

On the same day, a five-member panel of the Federal Court will also hear applications by former finance minister Daim Zainuddin and prominent businessman Abdul Halim Saad to expunge all references made in relation to them in a written judgment of the Appeals Court.

Court of Appeal judge Gopal Sri Ram had in the judgment stated that Halim and his business partner Anuar Othman had siphoned off RM32.5 million from Metramac, the owner and operator of the East-West Expressway and the Sungai Besi Expressway, and that they had enjoyed the patronage of Daim.

She's 'no specialist'

In her 10-page judgment, Wan Afrah said although she was satisfied that Blair was a leading Queen's Counsel specialising in public law, human rights, employment law and European Community issues, there was little to show that she was a specialist in judicial bias.

Looking into all the 15 cases which Blair had appeared as counsel, the judge said that judicial bias was never litigated in those cases.

"Being a specialist in public law per se does not reflect that she has the experience of such nature as required in the particular case. There is no evidence before me that she has appeared before the court in the United Kingdom or anywhere else on the issue of judicial bias," she said.

She also said that the books and essays authored by Blair also failed to indicate that she was a specialist on judicial bias.

The court also said that Blair had failed to prove that she has special qualifications or experience which was lacking among Malaysian lawyers.

"Whilst I acknowledge that ths issues to be litigated before the Federal Court may be complex, I am in no doubt and agree with opposing parties that a local advocate and solicitor will be able to handle such issues," said Wan Afrah.

Costly arguments

The court later heard arguments from parties on the costs to be borne by Blair.

Cyrus argued that only the Attorney-General, the Bar Council and the Kuala Lumpur Bar Committee whose interests are affected by the application, are entitled to costs.

He said the other opposing parties - Metramac, Daim and Abdul Halim- should not be awarded costs as they were not obliged to object to the application.

"Our adversaries and opponents are not obliged to oppose the motion and if they had done so, it was at their own choice. As such they have to bear any cost incurred in filing their objection," said Cyrus.

Pressing for costs, Abdul Halim's counsel Tommy Thomas said costs had always followed after the eventual course of the case and since his client, Daim and Metramac had succeeded in their objection, there was no reason for them to be denied costs.

He said the application had required all counsel to present tough and lengthy arguments.

"The counsel acting for Bar Council and the KL Bar Committee are acting pro bono which is why the law required that these parties are paid only RM100 for administrative costs. We don't have the luxury. A lot of efforts have been made for the case and I, for one, will not be sending a RM100 bill to my client," said Thomas.

His argument was concurred by Metramac's counsel Muhammad Shafee Abdullah and Nad Segaran who acted for Daim. The AG's Chambers was the other party which also sought costs.

Justice Wan Afrah then ruled that the AG's Chambers, Metramac, Daim and Abdul Halim deserved to be awarded costs.