CHERIE BLAIR has outraged the Malaysian legal establishment by applying for the right to appear in its federal court representing a big construction company in a commercial case.

The Prime Minister’s wife, known professionally as Cherie Booth, has been instructed by Fawziah Holdings in an £80 million dispute with Metramac over the design, construction and financing of roads in Kuala Lumpur. Her application will be heard in the Malaysian High Court today. It is being opposed by businessmen and lawyers, including the Attorney-General of Malaysia, who say that it is preposterous to argue that her expertise is needed.

One lawyer says in papers to the court: “Although the applicant (Ms Booth) does possess impressive credentials and is an eminent Queen’s Counsel, she does not specialise, nor has she distinguished herself, in the particular areas of law that will be adjudicated upon before the federal court.”

Lawyers said privately that the brief appeared to be capitalising on the names of Ms Booth and her husband as much as any relevant legal expertise she has.

Ms Booth, known chiefly as a human rights lawyer, provoked controversy last year when she delivered a speech on the subject in Malaysia, a country whose human rights record has come under fire.

A key reason for her appointment by Fawziah Holdings is thought to be that the Court of Appeal’s ruling in the dispute is being challenged on the ground of bias and, therefore, involves “public law issues”.

The Federal Court of Malaysia will hear the appeal by Metramac on June 14. It is thought to be the first time in Malaysia that a Court of Appeal judgment is being impugned on the basis of purported bias. Counsel for Ms Booth will argue, therefore, that the appeal “will necessarily involve public law issues of a type to be considered for the first time in Malaysia”.

But the Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, as well as the Bar Council and lawyers for Metramac and others, are opposing her application on the ground that there is local expertise able to take the case.

Peter Skelcy, of Chea Teh & Su, solicitors for Metramac, said: “It is preposterous for the respondent to now contend that it needs a Queen’s Counsel from the United Kingdom to argue issues which it considers trite law.” There were ample senior counsel in the country with the skills and expertise necessary to advance Fawziah Holdings’ case, he added.

He says in a submission to the court: “The applicant has failed to exhibit any experience, knowledge and/or understanding in the development of Malaysian jurisprudence with regard to the issues of law before the federal court.”

On the contrary Ms Booth has “distinguished herself in the area of employment law, human rights, European law and public law”.

In her application before the court, Ms Booth outlines seven reported commercial cases in which she has appeared — dismissed by one local lawyer as “hardly an outstanding achievement for a barrister of 30 years’ standing and a QC of 11 years’ standing”.

British lawyers are occasionally instructed in the Malaysian courts, but only when their expertise means that they are the best-qualified for the brief.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers
• Prince Charles named in £81m court battle