Teacher Joanathan Lock Wins Case
-
Glad to hear that Jonathan Lock is finally free from the legal entanglements he was in because the lawyers representing him and NTUC fucked up.
Kudos to Jonathan for standing up for the common man.
Makes me wonder if the peace offering from NTUC earlier to waive the $45,000 fee and an offer of additional $25,000 to Jonathan if he drops the appeal, was to cover its backside.
___________________________________
Teacher Jonathan Lock wins case
By Selina Lum
PRIMARY school teacher Jonathan Lock has won his long-drawn legal battle. He will not have to pay the $120,000 legal bills he has been saddled with.
The Court of Appeal - the highest in the land - on Wednesday ordered all the different parties to bear their own costs.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, who presided over the three-judge panel, also ruled that his former lawyer Andrew Hanam cannot bill Mr Lock, without the permission of the Appeal Court.
He also directed the Singapore Law Society to determine if is a case to hold an inquiry against Mr Hanam for professional misconduct.
A vindicated Mr Lock said after the Appeal Court's judgement: "Although mistakes were made by several parties, I hope that from this landmark case, loopholes, procedures and management will be rectified.
"The common man needs to have a voice, so that no one will ever have to go through what my family and I had gone through."
Mr Hanam, who was also in court on Wednesday morning, said he was confident he would be exonerated.
In delivering his judgement, Chief Justice Chan said the high-profile case has degenerated into a contest of wills.
"This case should never have come this far. It would not, if the solicitors in this case had acted reasonably in the interests of their clients," he said.
"A dispute involving a puny sum of about $60 escalated into contests of wills between two solicitors, resulting in wastage of judicial time and unnecessary expenditure in terms of court fees and disbursement which exceeded $100,000 even before the date of this hearing."
Noting that the fees from Mr Lock's ex-lawyer - up to the stage when Mr Hanam discharged himself - had ballooned to $150,000, the CJ said: "We are troubled by this.
"This is an incredible case. We have not seen one like it in all our years in the law. It has brought no credit to counsel involved and the legal system as a whole.
"All that the appellant wanted from the defendant was $375 being $485 for the cost of repairs to his car and $90 for loss of use, for which he eventually agreed to settle at $187.50.
"For this, he was put at risk of having to pay a sum in excess of $100,000 in legal fees."
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:
acted with Mr Lock's knowledge or consent in initiating enforcement proceedings in relation to the settlement 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 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. -
-
This is ridiculous. The court should have thrown out the case long ago to spare the teacher from going through such a nightmare.
-
Originally posted by seotiblizzard:
-
For those who don't know the background:
ACCIDENT:
Mr Lock's motorbike and Ms Goh's car collide in Nov 2004.
Mr Lock files lawsuit against Ms Goh in Sep 2005.
1st RULING
PDRC district judge orders both sides to bear 50% liability ($187.50 each) in Mar 2006
Ms Goh's insurers, NTUC Income, to pay costs of $1,000, plus lawyers' expenses.
DISPUTE OVER COSTS
Lawyers can't agree if Mr Lock's former lawyer Andrew Hanam's expenses is $230 or $290. Mr Hanam takes out writ of seizure and sale against Ms Goh for costs.
Ms Goh's insurer, NTUC Income, pays sum ordered by court and costs.
APPEAL
Between May and Nov, NTUC Income's lawyer, Mr Assomull, attempts to get seizure and March consent order to be set aside.
Appeal is rejected by deputy registrar, District Court.
In Feb 2007, NTUC Income is allowed to take case to High Court.
1st RULING OVERTURNED
On 26 Apri, Justice Lai Siu Chiu rules that PDRC is not a court, March consent order set aside.
Mr Lock must now pay legal costs of $63,000. Sum later revised to $45,000. He fires Mr Hanam, who bills him $80,000.
Last month, NTUC Income serves write of seizure on Mr Lock but later offers to waive $45,000 legal bill and give $25,000 as goodwill money.
FINAL APPEAL
Mr Lock turns down offer and proceeds to win appeal in Court of Appeal yesterday. -
It looks like the ego of two opposing lawyers dragging their clients into a bedlam of suits and counter-suits was dealt a staggering blow today.
People need to realise that the longer cases are dragged out, the only one who wins are lawyers, laughing all the way to the bank.
This minor accident case was dubious from the start. How a paltry sum ballooned into a 5-figure sum is totally beyond sense. -
That Mr Hanam and NTUC Income think that they can bully the common people of his money. Who is the n00b of a judge that made such a big cock up anyway? Must be afraid of losing his job right now.......
-
Moral of Story:
1) You must stand up for your rights. Don't be cowed by billing-lawyers and large corporations.
2) Lawyers need not necessarily be helping you. Most times they helped themselves to your money!
From $188 to $120,000? It is a joke of big proportion. Also, there are idiots in NTUC just as there are idiots everywhere. Name and face is more important than settling issues amicably. Common sense and good sense are thrown out of the window. What the appeal judges said in this case is absolutely right. Lawyers must also be taught a lesson. Fire your lawyer if he is incompetent. Don't be quick to accept settlement mean to shut you up. -
It seems that the issue that resulted in the case going all the way to the Court of Appeal is that of the jurisdiction of the lower Courts. This issue was regarded by the High Court as an important issue which is why it was allowed to proceed to the High Court.
Jonathan may have unwittingly been caught in a web of complex legal issues that he could not possibly have been aware of, but I don't agree that it was wrong for the lawyers to raise important issues to the Courts. Afterall, do we not want to see our lawyers raising novel issues of law for the Courts to think about? The only thing that I feel was wrong was the amount of legal costs that was saddled on Jonathan as a result of these issues.
I have a nagging feeling that the lawyers got lambasted because they had the audacity to challenge the jurisdiction of the Courts. -
PRIMARY school teacher Jonathan Lock has won his long-drawn legal battle. He will not have to pay the $120,000 legal bills he has been saddled with.
The Court of Appeal - the highest in the land - on Wednesday ordered all the different parties to bear their own costs.
different parties to bear their own costs. so it means the guy still has to the other lawyer fees which is probably enormous too? -
no lah, he only has to pay his current lawyer, probably amounting to a few thousand at best....Originally posted by hisoka:PRIMARY school teacher Jonathan Lock has won his long-drawn legal battle. He will not have to pay the $120,000 legal bills he has been saddled with.
The Court of Appeal - the highest in the land - on Wednesday ordered all the different parties to bear their own costs.
different parties to bear their own costs. so it means the guy still has to the other lawyer fees which is probably enormous too? -
-
NTUC Income wants to preserve its reputation mah. That's all it pulls out all the stunts.
Thumbs up to the 3 judges. We do have some sane minds in Singapore. -
NTUC eat ppl's moneyOriginally posted by nonameguy:That Mr Hanam and NTUC Income think that they can bully the common people of his money. Who is the n00b of a judge that made such a big cock up anyway? Must be afraid of losing his job right now....... -
still a big amount compared to the initial amount. i don't see how he won.Originally posted by countdracula:no lah, he only has to pay his current lawyer, probably amounting to a few thousand at best....
its like lose or lose. either he pays the extra or go court and then have to pay the legal fee even if he won. some system ......... -
congrats mr Lock!
-
i would love to see the teacher sues both lawyers & ntuc for the distress caused to him and his family.
-
well what can i say!
at least this Judge from Court of Appeal got abits of common sense...if not, this poor guy suffer sia..
guess what..he can counter sue now! lol.. -
At least it teaches NTUC and the stupis lawyer a lesson.Originally posted by hisoka:still a big amount compared to the initial amount. i don't see how he won.
its like lose or lose. either he pays the extra or go court and then have to pay the legal fee even if he won. some system .........
His few thousands compare tp $120,000 is nothing.
The NTUC laywer handling the case will be fired. The Hanam will suck his thumb and dare not play with fire again! -
i'm talking about the weird and rather stupid system. of course its godo that he "won".Originally posted by zenden9:At least it teaches NTUC and the stupis lawyer a lesson.
His few thousands compare tp $120,000 is nothing.
The NTUC laywer handling the case will be fired. The Hanman will suck his thumb and dare not play with fire again!
but i would call it more of a win with heavy casualties -
Forumnites, hope you all can help me with this.
I read Mr Lock's case with deep interest because I have myself been played out by NTUC Insurance.
I do respect Mr Lock for pursuing the matter, because for my personal case, I felt (then) I do not have the resources to fund my case. Now that I see somebody in the same boat as me I would like to make a little donate to him as support for his legal fight.
Any one of you here who happens to know how to contact him or has the same thoughts as me do join in, maybe can set up a "Quash Bullies Fund" -
the correct term is "collateral damage" "heavy collateral damage"Originally posted by hisoka:i'm talking about the weird and rather stupid system. of course its godo that he "won".
but i would call it more of a win with heavy casualties
-
1st lawyer rep Mr Lock stated he not not scared wor....even if investigated by the layer society
he so confident that he did not wrong or knows the loop hole of the system ? -
"I have myself been played out by NTUC Insurance" - what did they do to you?Originally posted by Ponders:Forumnites, hope you all can help me with this.
I read Mr Lock's case with deep interested because I have myself been played out by NTUC Insurance.
I do respect Mr Lock for pursuing the matter, because for my personal case, I felt (then) I do not have the resources to fund my case. Now that I see somebody in the same boat as me I would like to make a little donate to him as support for his legal fight.
Any one of you here who happens to know how to contact him or has the same thoughts as me do join in, maybe can set up a "Quash Bullies Fund" -
I was hit by a vehicle that was insured by NTUC.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:"I have myself been played out by NTUC Insurance" - what did they do to you?
When trying to claim third party from them, they said their client have not reported the accident to them. So they say they will wait for the client to report the accident.
The other party was finding excuses to not report, e.g. Reservist, OT, other plans, etc.
Few months later, they wrote me a letter, saying because their client did not report the accident within 48 hours of the event, the client has frustrated contract terms and therefore his insurance coverage is voided.
They still wrote they absolve all responsibilities and the case is between me, my insurer and the other party.
I end up have to pay for repairing my own damage. And my only option then was to pay $3000 upfront for legal fees if I want to pursue.
My big question is, What's stopping NTUC from saying the same story to everybody?
They can say they cancelled that client's policy, but the next day that client can sign up a new policy with NTUC and carry on as per normal.