Singapore courts, pedantic and inefficient, run by dotards?
https://www.straitstimes.com/busine...-that-shuttered-firm-before-resolving-dispute
Why must actually have a high court case to reverse the company closure?
Is it that plaintiff lawyers are lousy?
Shouldn't the whatever court of first hearing try to hear all issues at once for substantive justice and solve all issues without the case making little headway on technicalities and bouncing endlessly between courts?
If the plaintiff lawyers could identify the parties still responsible, regardless of their status as directors in a company now already closed down, then whatever court hearing the case should just judge the case without requesting the high court to reverse the company closure and deregistration which is just a small technicality imho as cases today are understandably more complex than past and if lower courts keep referring cases to be decided in high court, then all judges salary should be significantly cut, because it's obvious that they are just lame and a nuisance to society if they need to open so many different court case steps just to solve one small issue.
Even for those aggrieved by people who subsequently died, u don't open court case to make them undead but sue the estate and ask the administrators to reverse/ reduce will payouts if the court of first hearing allows. So why must reverse the company closure when even death certificate is not reversed by any competent, non kangaroo court.
As an aside, CASE SG should work with banks/ insurers (NTUC) to provide insurance and supervision to small companies, especially renovation contractors or have option to have their audited accounts published and appraised like rank points, so homeowners can judge their financial standing and experience at work.
But the judges in court I suspect, need to set the right example and pull up their socks. But if the high court hearing was only for 2 hours, and the judge made almost immediate decision for this small case, the Straits Times pls report so, so we are aware that our judges are indeed capable and not just a waste of state funds.
-----------------
Postscript
"case marks a rare win for an aggrieved home owner" from the ref report: makes it seems like injustice is rampant and the courts have been accomplices to this injustice till now?????
https://www.straitstimes.com/busine...-that-shuttered-firm-before-resolving-dispute
Why must actually have a high court case to reverse the company closure?
Is it that plaintiff lawyers are lousy?
Shouldn't the whatever court of first hearing try to hear all issues at once for substantive justice and solve all issues without the case making little headway on technicalities and bouncing endlessly between courts?
If the plaintiff lawyers could identify the parties still responsible, regardless of their status as directors in a company now already closed down, then whatever court hearing the case should just judge the case without requesting the high court to reverse the company closure and deregistration which is just a small technicality imho as cases today are understandably more complex than past and if lower courts keep referring cases to be decided in high court, then all judges salary should be significantly cut, because it's obvious that they are just lame and a nuisance to society if they need to open so many different court case steps just to solve one small issue.
Even for those aggrieved by people who subsequently died, u don't open court case to make them undead but sue the estate and ask the administrators to reverse/ reduce will payouts if the court of first hearing allows. So why must reverse the company closure when even death certificate is not reversed by any competent, non kangaroo court.
As an aside, CASE SG should work with banks/ insurers (NTUC) to provide insurance and supervision to small companies, especially renovation contractors or have option to have their audited accounts published and appraised like rank points, so homeowners can judge their financial standing and experience at work.
But the judges in court I suspect, need to set the right example and pull up their socks. But if the high court hearing was only for 2 hours, and the judge made almost immediate decision for this small case, the Straits Times pls report so, so we are aware that our judges are indeed capable and not just a waste of state funds.
-----------------
Postscript
"case marks a rare win for an aggrieved home owner" from the ref report: makes it seems like injustice is rampant and the courts have been accomplices to this injustice till now?????
