Current Affairs
I have just read an interesting read in the papers.
The summary case can be said as this: A Primary School Teacher, Mr Lock involved in a traffic accident in 2004 was awarded $188 for the damage to his motorbike and several years later, he has to pay 45,000 in under a month.
Initially he went to the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (PDRC) to settle it and the District Judge Seng award him 188 and Ms Goh was told to pay costs of almost 1,200.
However, Ms Goh appealed to the High Court and her lawyers argued that PDRC was no court and the court settlement was not part of a court proceedings. Hence, the PDRC decision was overturned and Mr Lock was told to pay the appeal costs.
Apparently, there were negotiations between Mr Lock and Ms God insurance company and but years dragged and Mr Lock make no move to pay the 45,000.
So Now, Mr Lock has need to pay the 45,000 in less then a month and his wife is pregnant with their first born.
(From the straits times)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I would just like to note something interesting in this case:
a) PDRC "is essentially a voluntary settlement process by which the parties reach a satisfactory solution with the aid of a neutral third person, the Settlement Judge. The parties begin by having a joint discussion with the Settlement Judge regarding their positions and requirements.
At various stages, the Settlement Judge may call for a caucus - a private session - where he speaks to the parties separately, in order to conduct a full and frank discussion of the issues. In this way, issues can be identified and all involved can then proceed to map out a suitable solution ."
http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/subcourts/page.aspx?pageid=4419
b) It is interesting to note that how Mr Lock lawyer Andrew Hanam did not even managed to turn against the appeal.
My Argument is this:
a) The PDRC is for people who don't want the hassle of a court and hence another alternative to reduced the number of court cases in the overloaded courts. So effectively, it is for smaller disputes and such.
Now, I would like to note that it is interesting to note that how the PDRC first award Mr Lock 188 in compensation damage first. But Ms Goh was told to pay costs of 1,200.
And Ms Goh appealed, on the ground not of misjudgement, but that the PDRC is no court and has no rights to issue a court settlement
And won, hence Mr Lock need to pay the appeal cost which was later reduced to 45,000.
At this point of time, it seems to me to be very ironic. If this is the case, then the PDRC is not serving its purpose of reducing the number of court cases in the courts.
Hence due to this issue, the subordinate courts issued a directive that, henceforth all settlements reached through the PDRC now known as the e@dr Cenre would require an endorsement by the courts to give them the weight of legal judgements.
It is interesting to not again that due to this issue, the above mentioned change occured
Frankly speaking, I think Mr Lock is too law-abiding and a bit passive at times. Now, he is taking his lawyer to court, which I think is the right move in the right direction.
And it just shows sometimes:
The Law Protects Those That Know The Law
---------------------------
On another note, Congratulations Mr Durai, on your new posts :)
It is interesting to note that in singapore, no local MNCs even bothered to let Mr Durai take up a senior position. (Most probably due to bad publicity)
But Singapore has lost yet another talent again.
Let's Us Take A Look At This:
a) Despite the sacking of the CEO and the board of directors, NKF is still the single most biggest dialysis center.
b) Who transformed NKF from a minor organisation to an organisation that is almost self-supporting for years?
c) The main problem with this saga is that there is no proper auditing process for NKF.
Wondering Wanderer
The summary case can be said as this: A Primary School Teacher, Mr Lock involved in a traffic accident in 2004 was awarded $188 for the damage to his motorbike and several years later, he has to pay 45,000 in under a month.
Initially he went to the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (PDRC) to settle it and the District Judge Seng award him 188 and Ms Goh was told to pay costs of almost 1,200.
However, Ms Goh appealed to the High Court and her lawyers argued that PDRC was no court and the court settlement was not part of a court proceedings. Hence, the PDRC decision was overturned and Mr Lock was told to pay the appeal costs.
Apparently, there were negotiations between Mr Lock and Ms God insurance company and but years dragged and Mr Lock make no move to pay the 45,000.
So Now, Mr Lock has need to pay the 45,000 in less then a month and his wife is pregnant with their first born.
(From the straits times)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I would just like to note something interesting in this case:
a) PDRC "is essentially a voluntary settlement process by which the parties reach a satisfactory solution with the aid of a neutral third person, the Settlement Judge. The parties begin by having a joint discussion with the Settlement Judge regarding their positions and requirements.
At various stages, the Settlement Judge may call for a caucus - a private session - where he speaks to the parties separately, in order to conduct a full and frank discussion of the issues. In this way, issues can be identified and all involved can then proceed to map out a suitable solution ."
http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/subcourts/page.aspx?pageid=4419
b) It is interesting to note that how Mr Lock lawyer Andrew Hanam did not even managed to turn against the appeal.
My Argument is this:
a) The PDRC is for people who don't want the hassle of a court and hence another alternative to reduced the number of court cases in the overloaded courts. So effectively, it is for smaller disputes and such.
Now, I would like to note that it is interesting to note that how the PDRC first award Mr Lock 188 in compensation damage first. But Ms Goh was told to pay costs of 1,200.
And Ms Goh appealed, on the ground not of misjudgement, but that the PDRC is no court and has no rights to issue a court settlement
And won, hence Mr Lock need to pay the appeal cost which was later reduced to 45,000.
At this point of time, it seems to me to be very ironic. If this is the case, then the PDRC is not serving its purpose of reducing the number of court cases in the courts.
Hence due to this issue, the subordinate courts issued a directive that, henceforth all settlements reached through the PDRC now known as the e@dr Cenre would require an endorsement by the courts to give them the weight of legal judgements.
It is interesting to not again that due to this issue, the above mentioned change occured
Frankly speaking, I think Mr Lock is too law-abiding and a bit passive at times. Now, he is taking his lawyer to court, which I think is the right move in the right direction.
And it just shows sometimes:
The Law Protects Those That Know The Law
---------------------------
On another note, Congratulations Mr Durai, on your new posts :)
It is interesting to note that in singapore, no local MNCs even bothered to let Mr Durai take up a senior position. (Most probably due to bad publicity)
But Singapore has lost yet another talent again.
Let's Us Take A Look At This:
a) Despite the sacking of the CEO and the board of directors, NKF is still the single most biggest dialysis center.
b) Who transformed NKF from a minor organisation to an organisation that is almost self-supporting for years?
c) The main problem with this saga is that there is no proper auditing process for NKF.
Wondering Wanderer
Comments