Lock Han Chng Jonathan v. Goh Jessiline was a court case decided in the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 31 December 2007 which concerned the validity of settlements made at the (PDRC) of the Subordinate Courts of Singapore.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Lock Han Chng Jonathan v Goh Jessiline (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Lock Han Chng Jonathan v. Goh Jessiline was a court case decided in the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 31 December 2007 which concerned the validity of settlements made at the (PDRC) of the Subordinate Courts of Singapore. (en)
|
name
| - Lock Han Chng Jonathan v. Goh Jessiline (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
citations
| |
court
| |
full name
| - Lock Han Chng Jonathan v. Goh Jessiline (en)
|
judges
| - Chan Sek Keong C.J., Andrew Phang and V. K. Rajah JJ.A. (en)
|
has abstract
| - Lock Han Chng Jonathan v. Goh Jessiline was a court case decided in the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 31 December 2007 which concerned the validity of settlements made at the (PDRC) of the Subordinate Courts of Singapore. The case was highly publicized in the media for the absurdities in the legal process leading up to the appeal, which ballooned from a compensation payment of S$187.50 to over $120,000 in legal costs over a minor vehicle accident. In particular, one of the appeal judges, Justice V. K. Rajah, expressed to one of the lawyers representing Goh's insurers NTUC Income that "you used a sledgehammer to crack a nut, when all you needed was a nutcracker." The court decided that all parties were to bear their own legal costs except appellant Jonathan Lock, who could not be billed by his ex-lawyer Andrew Hanam without the court's permission and who was to have his legal costs for the appeal paid by NTUC Income. The Chief Justice also directed the Law Society of Singapore to investigate Hanam's professional conduct. The court upheld the PDRC's decisions in dispute resolution to be binding in subsequent court orders. (en)
|
date decided
| |
opinions
| - *Settlements made at the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre of the Subordinate Courts of Singapore are binding, and can be included in a court order for enforcement purposes.
*All parties to pay own costs except Lock; his former lawyer to be investigated for possible breach of professional duties. (en)
|
prior actions
| - M.C. Suit No. 21830 of 2005; [2007] 3 S.L.R. 51, High Court (en)
|
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |