Why court directed mediation/ arbitration is a very good idea for Singapore.
Firstly, what is the reason behind being shortchanged by bank: did U clarify with bank why the account was short changed?
Sometimes, either side argument isn't clearly explained: U might allege bank admin staff corrupt: but what is the proof, can bank prove that U actually spent the $ and then forgot?
I believe that judge of the case should always send both parties for mediation then self-judge case only if mediation failed (unless either party can convince otherwise), whilst asking the mediator why his mediation failed: (uncooperative/ arrogant/ greedy party/ parties??), cos Singapore courts hear IIRC 400,000 cases per year. Of course some are about unpaid parking fines only, not all are City Harvest type, 3 hearing period and still not finished or little India riot COI with half Singapore appearing as eye witnesses or expert witness but still, judges cannot possible single handed lay hear ALL demands sought, must subcontract to mediators/ arbitration, otherwise, a stressed judge will surely make mistake or fall asleep and deliver half baked decision/ injustice as consequence. If say bank is stubborn during mediation or if have attitude problem and try to appeal against pittance payout and show attitude by refusing to even attend mediation, then if client case is good, of course bank will have to pay all ancillary charges including plaintiff legal fees (along with good scolding by judge), but this isn't so much because of the original mistake, but because of the series of screw up and attitude problem by the bank in trying to show the judge who is the boss. This kind of bankers, sooner or later will close down and get new job as shoe polisher on road side eventually wan...
In simple term, just suing to get face/ demanding excessive compensation, under systematic scrutiny by mediator, arbitrator and then judge, will surely reveal one's real intent to sue: not so much for justice but more greed/ to show off. This kind of people will most like get Pyrrhic victory only, cos the legal cost will be very very high as for such plaintiffs who purposely fail mediation/ demand unreasonable compensation, judge might uphold the pittance compensation that plaintiff deserves, however, cause plaintiff pain of all legal costs (including defendants legal costs) if the case is deemed vexatious/ the plaintiff greedy/ uncooperative and upholds original compensation that defendants tried to pay as equitable and fair: thus dismissing the appeal for more-compensation-case as no case to answer etc.
PS:
The total workload for year 2006, is 356,360 cases (reference to Annual Report 2006 of the Subordinate Courts): http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/Data/Files/File/AR 2006/AnnualReport2006.pdf
Dun think it is so simple to get fame.moxmoxmox said:
Firstly, what is the reason behind being shortchanged by bank: did U clarify with bank why the account was short changed?
Sometimes, either side argument isn't clearly explained: U might allege bank admin staff corrupt: but what is the proof, can bank prove that U actually spent the $ and then forgot?
I believe that judge of the case should always send both parties for mediation then self-judge case only if mediation failed (unless either party can convince otherwise), whilst asking the mediator why his mediation failed: (uncooperative/ arrogant/ greedy party/ parties??), cos Singapore courts hear IIRC 400,000 cases per year. Of course some are about unpaid parking fines only, not all are City Harvest type, 3 hearing period and still not finished or little India riot COI with half Singapore appearing as eye witnesses or expert witness but still, judges cannot possible single handed lay hear ALL demands sought, must subcontract to mediators/ arbitration, otherwise, a stressed judge will surely make mistake or fall asleep and deliver half baked decision/ injustice as consequence. If say bank is stubborn during mediation or if have attitude problem and try to appeal against pittance payout and show attitude by refusing to even attend mediation, then if client case is good, of course bank will have to pay all ancillary charges including plaintiff legal fees (along with good scolding by judge), but this isn't so much because of the original mistake, but because of the series of screw up and attitude problem by the bank in trying to show the judge who is the boss. This kind of bankers, sooner or later will close down and get new job as shoe polisher on road side eventually wan...
In simple term, just suing to get face/ demanding excessive compensation, under systematic scrutiny by mediator, arbitrator and then judge, will surely reveal one's real intent to sue: not so much for justice but more greed/ to show off. This kind of people will most like get Pyrrhic victory only, cos the legal cost will be very very high as for such plaintiffs who purposely fail mediation/ demand unreasonable compensation, judge might uphold the pittance compensation that plaintiff deserves, however, cause plaintiff pain of all legal costs (including defendants legal costs) if the case is deemed vexatious/ the plaintiff greedy/ uncooperative and upholds original compensation that defendants tried to pay as equitable and fair: thus dismissing the appeal for more-compensation-case as no case to answer etc.
PS:
The total workload for year 2006, is 356,360 cases (reference to Annual Report 2006 of the Subordinate Courts): http://app.subcourts.gov.sg/Data/Files/File/AR 2006/AnnualReport2006.pdf
Last edited:
