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.
