Contributed by Chan Sek Keong, Retired Chief Justice of Singapore
It was with great sadness that I learnt of the death of Peter Mooney on 27 April 2015 at the age of 92. It was with greater sadness that I could not attend his funeral service and cremation, which took place on the same day. True to his sense of humbleness, he did not want to bother his friends and colleagues with a long wake. He made Malaysia his home, and there is no fitting epitaph for him than his own words “J’y suis, j’y reste (Here I am, here I stay).”
I have known Peter for about 54 years. He came into my life accidentally in 1961 when I began reading in chambers with M/s Bannon and Bailey at Mountbatten Road, KL. This came about after my graduation from the then–University of Malaya in Singapore Law School and my practical law course in Singapore. John Skrine, who was the external examiner in land law, had earlier told me that if I needed a job as a lawyer, he would be happy to have me. John Skrine was then a partner of Bannon & Bailey. I wrote to him and was offered paid pupillage at the princely sum of $350 pm because, being from Ipoh, I had to provide for my accommodation in KL.
When I reported for my pupillage around June 1961, John Skrine told me that he was going on home leave for three months, and that his partner, Peter Mooney, would be my de facto pupil master. It turned out to be a real blessing because, as I later found out, although John Skrine was a good solicitor, Peter was a better advocate. I did not know that he had held high executive office in Sarawak before joining Bannon & Bailey, but, I could see, even then, that he was a leading partner in the firm, which was then probably the largest law firm in Malaya.
He was an exemplary pupil master. I could not have found one better. I was regularly given a legal issue to research in the late afternoon with instructions to discuss the problem with him the next morning. He took his role seriously and made sure his pupils would receive the training and values necessary for a successful career in the law.
He would make me sit in with him in strategy meetings with clients. A learning experience came by in a huge impending motor insurance claim arising out of a very serious collision between a lorry and a motor car on the Ipoh–KL road at night around 3 am. The collision took place in the middle of the road and killed all the four or five passengers in the car. It was one of the worst accidents that had occurred in Selangor. There were no witnesses, except for the lorry driver. The insurance adjusters produced detailed maps of the road to show alignment and camber (the first time I heard of the word). Peter developed the case theory that the accident was more likely than not to have been caused by the lorry driver who had probably fallen asleep and was not in full control of the lorry. I thought it was a sound theory and later the claim was defended on that basis. However, the Judge, then–Justice HT Ong, held that both parties were equally liable. Still, it was an illuminating exercise in how to create a case theory from the “facts”, such as they were.
Peter once took me along as his “assistant” to defend a British Army cook who had been court martialled for stealing a chicken. Peter drove (he had a green Rover which must have been the only one in KL then) to Seremban where the British army was quartered. It was the first time I had attended a court martial. Peter defended the cook as best as he could (I can’t remember what the defence was) but he was convicted and was given a short custodial sentence and was discharged with dishonour. What impressed me was that the court martial was conducted with great courtesy on all sides. The other thing that impressed me was the lunch we were served after the proceedings in the officers’ Mess. The British army officers really lived in great style and comfort.
At the beginning of my pupillage, I was told that some lawyers and judges considered Peter as somewhat aloof or even arrogant. That was not my experience. Socially, Peter was friendly to the firm’s young lawyers.
Peter’s book “Servant of Sarawak” shows a side of his character few of us knew. He was not the high and mighty colonial master that many of us would have expected him to be, especially when he had been Senior Crown Counsel and then Attorney General of Sarawak. He cared for the indigenous people, his forays into the jungle of Sarawak showed how dedicated he was to his work.
Once, when I was going to Singapore, he asked me to buy a metronome for him. I did not know what a metronome was. He said it was an instrument used by pianists to time their speed of play, and demonstrated with his how it worked. That was when I knew he was a pianist. Much later on, in the last few years of his life, I would send to him the quarterly concert programmes of the Singapore Symphony Orchestra in Singapore as he wanted to attend some of them.
In 1988, when I was a judge, I decided a point of law under the Singapore Legal Profession that foreign lawyers were not qualified to represent clients in arbitration proceedings in Singapore where the governing law of the contract was Singapore law. The decision caused great consternation among the international arbitration bar, especially US lawyers. Peter was moved to publish a sustained criticism of my judgment (see [1989] 3 MLJ cvii) as being against international arbitration practice and also inconsistent with Malaysian law. I was not aware that he was engaged or involved in international arbitration. This must be an example of a disciple who failed his sifu.
I knew only a small part of Peter’s life as I worked in Bannon & Bailey for about 18 months. But we kept in touch, and the tutelage and kindness I received from him was an enriching and unforgettable experience. I shall miss Peter Mooney.
Chan Sek Keong
(Retired Chief Justice of Singapore)
30 April 2015