Teacher Joanathan Lock Wins Case
-
Hmmm....i am also under AIG, and their service so far has been prety decent. It's a shame that NTUC is playing the 'ignorant' card and rejecting your claims. They are most likely banking on the assumption that you will not pursue the matter.Originally posted by Ponders:Same as where Attenby is working.
Well, my ins company simply put, just "made sure" i am happy by paying down damage to my excess. Any further claims against NTUC would be within their Claims Recovery policy.
After my company paid me down, they simply hand me over to their lawyer if i choose to proceed.
Probably similar to Jonathan Lock when they offered him a 'way out', provided he drop his appeal. Too bad for them it turned horribly wrong...
-
there is no way for us to find out, what ntuc income had offer in the first place that result in lock action in engaging a lawyer, maybe just maybe, ntuc offer 50% /50% or 80% /20% or 70% / 30% during the first conversation with a claim adviser, if this small case can't be settle, then a examiner will look at this case to determine. Normally any insurance company will want to settle this small claim asap, if you bring this court, have to wait for a court date, a simple case like this, might have to wait for, at least 6 months, if you engage a lawyerOriginally posted by BillyBong:The question of ignorance only comes in if a person chooses not to listen to sound advice or is oblivious to common knowledge and prefers to live in well.
When it comes down to legal issues, how often is the common man familiar with the precise options available? The average man on the street will certainly not have adequate knowledge of the law and how best to proceed. Following a lawyer's advice is the best option.
If the lawyer somehow mushrooms the costs to exhorbitant amounts, is it really the client's fault? Yes, you can label the lawyer as greedy and such, but it is the actions and intent that one should question. It is too simplistic to dismiss the case as one of a 'greedy lawyer' and 'ignorant client'.
A simple case like this mirrors many of the accident cases that are plaguing the legal system here. I'm sure there are plenty more cases just like Lock's pending to be settled but have not been blown to light. The ethical conduct of lawyers and insurance companies should take centerstage.
Ever since the TP absolved their responsibility to non-injury related accidents, insurance companies and their lawyers have been allowed to dictate play to their own ends. It is high time their unethical practices be brought to light and taken to task. Not only are they wasting the court's time, but their motives appear questionable: are they really protecting the clients' interests, as their role dictates?
and you can't drive a car without insurance in singapore! i know that, and then , when i was working at AIG, it is at martin road, look, it is a matter of, how much paperwork, you have to do, car insurance business is a dirty business, why so? because nobody is going to admit it is their fault at all, because it will affect their NCB - no claim bonus..................... if the claim is more than 20%(if my memory serves me right), it will affect NCB, and you end up paying more premium, imagine AIG has about 6 examiner to handle car accident
and do you think, it is possible for things to be settle fast, nope, which is why, i mention before, settle the claim asap, or it will be draggy, even for examiner, they have to wait for survey report which contain all the damage to your car, and unless someone hit the back of your car, this is confirm + chop, it is the other party fault, unless you have proof to show that which is photos, that he reverse gear.
A small tiny scar can total up to few thousand dollars, the reason for this simple, the workshop wants to earn, even if i drive a car, i will insist, it is not my fault,
look, if you want cheap insurance, go for ntuc income or china insurance, if you want good services, go for AIG
P.S. I think all of you know about courts extended warranty for their product, between, AIG is also handling as well. Courts outsource to AIG
Engage a lawyer, and you will get those examiner attention, then those stupid lawyers will send duplicate copy of pursing for payments, blah blah blah, normally, i will throw it away and if there is no injury involved in the accident, worse comes to worst, it is bankrupt, it is a civil case.
Priority always goes to those damned lawyer letter aka writ of summon, examiner or claim adviser will tell you, once you receive a writ of summon, please send it over asap. -
IS JONATHAN LEONG GAY?
-
if a primary school teacher has got so much time to play such a game involving even 3 judges... hmm.. he is more then a primary school teacher. Or is he insane to engage a lawyer to claim $60? Or he just like to be in the news?
After following the thread, I'm not sure who is greedy or "greedy-minded " .... teacher, lawyer, NTUC or AIG insurance agent
Impression of insurance (company) to me has gone from bad to ok to bad then to worst.
To support primary teacher, I will ban NTUC and AIG. -
It's the principle of the matter if we want to look at it in a different perspective.Originally posted by audiovideo:if a primary school teacher has got so much time to play such a game involving even 3 judges... hmm.. he is more then a primary school teacher. Or is he insane to engage a lawyer to claim $60? Or he just like to be in the news?
After following the thread, I'm not sure who is greedy or "greedy-minded " .... teacher, lawyer, NTUC or AIG insurance agent
Impression of insurance (company) to me has gone from bad to ok to bad then to worst.
To support primary teacher, I will ban NTUC and AIG.
Sometimes it is better to pay and engage a lawyer to look over your complaint or problem over than to risk a headache later on. For me, I have engaged lawyers to be safe rather than sorry when pouring over contractual obligations.
And lawyer's fees for consultancy is usually not more than 200 dollars per hour unless you engaged a high profile lawyer or your case is incredibly complicated. -
yup he is happy...Originally posted by DjMatrix:IS JONATHAN LEONG GAY?
he won his court case and his wife is expecting..
so ya, he is gay. -
I don't think anyone should be bashing this guy at all.
I notice alot of flame baiting and trolling.
Think of it this way, this guy had the guts to stick to his guns while most would prefer to just pay and whine like hell about it later on the forums or to their friends. I think that says alot. -
allentyb...
after reading what you replied ur ans here, i don't think you really know what is going on. Please read more in details about this case.
Btw its a breach of duty definitely by the lawyer. If i got time i would go down to the Courthouse and see them arguing about it. Very basis law stuffs for this case, those like to know more abt common law shd try understand this case! -
kudos for BillyBong...
Looks like we got some common sense forumers here.
btw..about Ponders case, there is always the e option of going to see your MP about this matter..thou well i can tell you legal system is a system of how you play around. If you really want to win this, go all ahead..don't half hearted.. -
i would have won my case, but then i was a NSF and i can't fork out $3000.Originally posted by winning 11:kudos for BillyBong...
Looks like we got some common sense forumers here.
btw..about Ponders case, there is always the e option of going to see your MP about this matter..thou well i can tell you legal system is a system of how you play around. If you really want to win this, go all ahead..don't half hearted..
I would have done it now when I am working and have the resources.
That's why i empathise with Mr Lock and if there is anyway I can help him i would.
Like "help Mr Lock Fund" -
This Pandora's Box threatens to stay open
Thursday • October 11, 2007
Leong Wee Keat
[email protected]
TODAYonline
THE spectre of mounting legal costs is looming once again for primary school teacher Jonathan Lock (picture), who is suing his former lawyer, Mr Andrew Ha-nam, for inadequate professional services. But this time, a wiser Mr Lock is determined not to get into any complicated legal tangle.
He has applied to the High Court to postpone his civil suit against Mr Hanam, pending the outcome of an inquiry by the Law Society into the conduct of the lawyer.
Mr Lock hopes to use that outcome to bolster his claim against Mr Hanam.
The lawyer had represented Mr Lock in an accident claim which, after a protracted legal struggle, ended in the Court of Appeal last week. The three-judge court, chaired by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, was aghast at how a simple accident claim involving $188 had escalated to a legal bill of $120,000 for Mr Lock.
The judge had blamed the lawyers involved for taking matters so far, instead of accepting the mediation settlement. He directed the Law Society to look into whether Mr Hanam should be investigated for a "possible breach of his professional duties" and for exposing Mr Lock to "unnecessary monetary risks and adverse legal consequences".
In yesterday's court hearing, Mr Ha-nam made an application to sue for defamation, which Mr Lock's lawyer, Mr Joseph Chen, countered with another application to strike out the counterclaim.
Mr Chen told Today that his client wanted to postpone his civil suit to avoid adding to legal costs.
He said: "He wants to close the Pandora's box. If the civil suit languishes in the court, he would have to pay some legal costs regardless of whether he wins or loses."
He added that the Law Society inquiry would require a higher burden of proof from the parties concerned — compared to a civil suit — while not adding more costs to his client.
Court proceedings yesterday were adjourned to a special session next Wednesday.
http://www.todayonline.com/pda/216072ag.htm -
Thank God allen isn't a lawyer. 2nd HANAM
-
It is no use trying to complain to the Ministry or minister about such non-payment of salaries unless you come under the collective agreement cases or union cases or your employer specifically fail to contribute your CPF or close shop and run away.
In normal contractual employment, an employer who deliberately fails to pay on agreed salaries or bonus could simply refuse to pay if he does not want to and could rely on contractual ambiguities if any to get away with payments depending on how he writes his contract.
This is the right of the employee in Singapore as the government here does not look after the interest of their employees as well as the employers who could then write his contract of employment with ambiguities to avoid payments of agreed salaries or bonus.
Many employers in Singapore could simply avoid payments by making payments subject to conditions which are unclear or ambiguous and let the employee sue if he want to claim payments he is entitled to.
To the government, the employers are more important than employees so it does not provide any help to administer such contracts and keep a neutral stand apart from providing minimum conditions like medical leave, workman compensation for certain type of employees, CPF or industrial arbitration cases for dealing with unions - not protecting unions (but for protecting employers).
The whole employment contract is heavily stacked against the employees.
If any employers want to penalize any employees like when the employees resign the employers could just refuse to pay agreed salaries or 13th month bonus and the employee will have to start his own legal action to recover such non-payment.
I wrote to the Minister in charge to complain about my employer's failure to pay agreed salaries and bonus in 2001 but received no reply.
So after receiving no help I had to start my own legal action to recover the salaries and bonus contracted to be paid. The lawyer representing my ex-employer deliberately interpreted the contracted payments against me even though on the written terms and fact the agreed salaries and bonus were payable but I had to defend my contractual rights all by myself without the help of any laws or the minister.
So an employee should be expected to go through the legal process to prove his case in a court of his rights like the Jonathan Lock vs Harnam case over non-payment of insurance claim. A rich and powerful employer could always refuse to pay the employee's agreed salaries or bonus and let him start his own legal action to recover the amounts incurring many thousands of dollars thereby deterring the employees to sue.
Thus the law as it stands now is against the employees for if he is bullied there is nothing he could do except to start an expensive legal action with no guarantee of justice because an employer's lawyer could almost fight on anything and give any clever excuses given in the unclear contract to deny employee to right.
A clever employer only need to write the contracted payments as subjected to certain condition which is hard to be determined so he could deprive employees of salaries or bonus as agreed salaries and bonus and the employer could not be penalised.
I won the case after two hearings in an out-of-court settlement but got nothing of the salaries or bonus because what I won I used it all to pay my legal fees.
This is how our world-class ministers are serving and looking after their citizens who are being bullied left and right by the powerful and rich errant employers. -
About 2 years ago, I quite from my job after working for slightly more than a year. The employer refused to pay me my leave pay. I complained to Ministry of Manpower and they say I had to engage my own lawyer to sue for my dues. I approached NTUC for help since I am a union member, they can't do much too. Imagine my ex-employer say since I wasn't given a comfirmation letter, I was still under probation even after working for a year. The MOM agree since no letter to show I was confirmed ... I gave up the fight ... no money no talk ... how I wish I was like Mr Lock.. at least he got his satifaction ..
