My head is a BOX FULL OF THIS.

Oct 15, 2007 23:45

I take especial joy in choosing the most inappropriate layouts for this LJ. Today's is "Hearts and Daisies", off the "Mixit" theme. Every single entry is marked with a heart as header image. And it's a virulent pink.

This month absolutely exploded with the number of court cases:

1. The Jonathan Lock case, which is so famous it has its own Wikipedia entry (Lock v Goh). Case makes a great heading on the summary of facts alone, "Primary School Teacher billed S$80,000 in legal costs for his S$187.50 motor insurance claim". Naturally it's never that simple. Though the matter of the fees has been settled, the lawyer involved still faces an

inquiry (means possible disciplinary proceedings) (source here):

On Tuesday, Justice V.K Rajah, one of the three appeal judges, rapped the lawyers involved in the case for escalating it from a simple traffic claim into a long, costly feud.

"You used a sledgehammer to crack a nut, when all you needed was a nutcracker," he told the lawyer for NTUC Income, who had challenged an earlier order made by the mediation judge.

Inquiry into ex-counsel's conduct

The Chief Justice also said that in light of the short account given by Mr Lock's new lawyer, Mr Joseph Chen, it is necessary to investigate Mr Hanam for "possible breach of his professional duties" by exposing his client to "unnecessary monetary risks and adverse legal consequences, apparently without his knowledge or consent."

He said he would direct the Registrar of the Supreme Court to refer the matter to the Council of the Law Society to determine whether the Chairman of its Inquiry Committee should look into four areas regarding Mr Hanam's conduct under the Legal Profession Act.

The Inquiry Committee should find out if Mr Hanam had:

(1) acted with Mr Lock's knowledge or consent in initiating enforcement proceedings in relation to the settlement
(2) acted in the best interests of Mr Lock in seeking to enforce the settlement agreement
kept Mr Lock informed or had explained to him the risks involved in taking all the steps he did in the proceedings
(3) acted inappropriately in sending Mr Lock a bill for $150,000 upon his discharge as counsel in the appeal.

Mr Lock has maintained that he was not kept in the loop about the case by Mr Hanam.

- Totally random note: Discovered zaobao.com while hunting up this case.

2. The Horizon Towers case. Massive en-bloc sale hit with allegations of procedural slip-ups. To my great horror/amusement, I've also discovered enblocsingapore, a blog devoted to en bloc proceedings in Singapore. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?! It is an absolutely beautiful site: relevant, well-tagged, clear, seven kinds of totally AMAZING.

3. The Asia Pacific Breweries case. Said to be Singapore's largest civil litigation suit (and my heavens, one look at the sums and you'll know why). Short summary. It's the fallout of the Chia Teck Leng case - an APB employee, he managed to embezzle S$117 million from four major banks. This lawsuit is about the banks trying to get their money back by suing Chia's employer, APB. Latest news: two out of the four banks drop their suits. Senior Counsel for APB, Davinder Singh, "contended that the bank got cold feet after watching how the cross-examination was progressing". Having attended the hearing, I believe that's probably the unspoken truth.

In other news: overview of The Life Cycle of a Civil Litigation Case. Or what we've been tortured with for the past two months. And will be tortured with, for the rest of the month.

"Crushed by work" would not begin to cut the current state of affairs. *has a hysterical scream about CDR, which is this Saturday. I went absolutely nuts trying to find the CPR practice direction of the Sub Court website. It's here. Naturally, it is a 2004 direction. Here's a 2006 PD about changes to forms requesting changes of dates. HOW DOES ANYBODY KEEP ALL THIS STUFF IN THEIR HEAD at any one time?!

+ Subordinate Courts Practice Directions
+ ePD 2006



CDR Procedure

25. Settlement Conferences - Court Dispute Resolution
(1) In order to minimise the costs of litigation and to promote early
resolution of disputes, the court may, upon the request in writing by the
parties or of its own motion, convene a Settlement Conference.
(2) A request by parties for a Settlement Conference shall be made in Form
7 of Appendix B. The details of the case and the names of the law firms
involved are to be stated on the form. The form is to be faxed to No:
65572187 for EFS cases and to No: 64380774 for non-EFS cases.
(3) In order for Settlement Conferences to achieve their full potential,
solicitors should request for Settlement Conferences only after pleadings
have closed.
(4) Solicitors for the respective parties to the proceedings will be required to
submit to the Civil Division their Opening Statement in the same format
as that prescribed by Part VII of these Directions not later than two clear
days before the Settlement Conference.
(5) The services of the Court Interpreters, where required, will be provided
without charge.
(6) As the Conference is conducted in chambers, the provisions of Order
90A of the Rules of Court (hearing fees) do not apply to Settlement
Conferences.
(7) The parties to the proceedings and their respective principal solicitors
must personally attend the Settlement Conference. They are expected to
be thoroughly prepared to discuss their respective cases.
(8) Where there are expert witnesses, these persons are also required to
personally attend the Settlement Conference. Wherever necessary,
applications for the issue of subpoenas to secure the attendance of such
witnesses may be made to the Duty Registrar. In such cases, the
application should be made well in advance of the Settlement
Conference.
(9) The Settlement Conference will be conducted on a without prejudice
basis. All communication arising out of the Settlement Conference will
be treated in strict confidence.
(10) If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute at the Settlement
Conference, the District Judge or Magistrate will give the necessary
directions to enable the action to proceed to trial. The action will be tried
by another Judge other than the District Judge or Magistrate conducting
the Settlement Conference.
(11) The Registrar shall have the discretion to appoint non-judicial officers
such as legal assistants to conduct the Settlement Conference in actions
arising out of collision on land where there are no claims for personal
injuries and where the issues in dispute are factual and not issues of law.
(12) For Settlement Conferences of road accident matters parties are to
comply with the mediation guidelines at Appendix C.
(13) A request for an adjournment of a Settlement Conference shall be made
in Form 8 of Appendix B. The form is to be faxed to No: 65572187 for
EFS cases and to No: 64380774 for non-EFS cases.
(14) It has also been observed that some parties have chosen to absent
themselves repeatedly at Settlement Conferences convened upon their
request, thereby depriving other parties of such available slots and the
expeditious resolution of their disputes. In order to minimise such
wastage of judicial time and resources, the Court may exercise its
powers under Order 34A, Rule 2(3), of the Rules of Court to dismiss the
action or proceedings or strike out the defence or counterclaim or enter
judgment or make any such order it deems fit upon the repeated absence
of any party on a second or subsequent occasion a Settlement
Conference is convened.



Opening Statements
Opening statements
(a) A proper opening statement is of great assistance to the Court as
it sets out the case in a nutshell, both as to facts and law. It
enables the Judge to appreciate what the case is about, and what
he is to look out for when reading and listening to the evidence
that will follow. Opening statements also help to clarify issues
between the parties, so that unnecessary time is not spent on
trying to prove what is not disputed or irrelevant.
(b) In the light of these objectives, opening statements will be
required in all cases from both plaintiff as well as defence
counsel, except where dispensation has been granted by the trial
Judge and in running down actions. Statements submitted may
be taken as read by the trial Judge.
(c) The plaintiff’s statement as provided for in sub-paragraph (5)(e)
below, should, unless exempted or dispensation has been granted
by the trial Judge, be filed and served on all other relevant parties
not less than 3 days before the commencement of the trial for
which they are to be used.
(d) The other counsel should each similarly not later than 2 days
before the start of the trial provide to the Court (with copies at
the same time to their opponents) a statement which should
concisely state the nature of their case on each of the issues to be
tried and summarise the propositions of law to be advanced with
references to the main authorities to be relied on; the character
and length of this document will depend on the circumstances
and whether there is any counterclaim or third party proceedings.
(e) In the case of the plaintiff, the statement must include the
following:
(i) a summary of essential facts indicating which, if any, are
agreed;
(ii) an indication of how these facts are to be proved,
identifying relevant witnesses and documents;
(iii) a summary of the issues involved with cross-references as
appropriate to the pleadings;
(iv) a summary of the plaintiff’s case in relation to each of the
issues with references to the key documents relied upon,
and a summary of the propositions of law to be advanced
with references to the main authorities to be relied on;
and
(v) an explanation of the reliefs claimed (if these are unusual
or complicated).
(f) Counsel will be at liberty to amend their statements at the trial
but in such event will be expected to explain the reasons for the
amendments.
(6) At the trial of the cause or matter, an adjournment may be ordered if:
(a) the above documents or any of them, save for the opening
statement in cases where it is not required or dispensation was
granted, were not filed and served within the prescribed time or
at all; or
(b) one party seeks to tender any of the above documents or
supplements thereto except for supplements to the opening
statement at the trial of the cause or matter.
(7) If an adjournment is ordered for any of the reasons set out in subparagraph
(6) above, the party who has failed to file or serve his
documents within the prescribed time or at all or who seeks to tender a
document or supplement thereto except for supplements to the opening
statement may be ordered by the Court to bear the costs of the
adjournment.

fraud, civil procedure, litigation, professional responsibility, conveyancing, news, insurance

Previous post Next post
Up