Did Jonathan Lock get a fair deal?

Jonathan Lock and his lawyer called a truce and both withdrew their cases against each other. Is it a fair and just ending? Did our justice system provide the justice due to either of them? Would Jonathan Lock withdraw his claims against his lawyer if not for fear of mounting legal cost should he pursue the case? And for pursuing his case, his lawyer will counter sue him for defamation, which means that he may even incur more financial losses. So Jonathan Lock chickened out. He had to abandon his claim against his lawyer not that he did not have a case. But the punitive legal cost was a huge obstacle to cross. The poor citizens will forever be faced with such a situation, not to pursue a legal tussle because they cannot afford it. And anyone who is faced with a legal claim, or any apparent wrong, could simply threaten to sue if he has money, and win.


Anonymous said...

In Singapore, money = power and rights to bully

matilah_singapura said...

Our hapless, brow beaten hero did exactly what was the only right thing to do.

Win wars, that's important. Winning petty battles are for those who need to polish their egos—which can be done with more "style" in Geylang, when the chick tells the customer what a "Big Man" he is.

The key to a happy (reasonably) hassle-free life is to have as little to do with the State Monopoly "Justice"(?) System. You cannot go to a "competitor" for justice, because none exists. Therefore state monopoly "justice" and the "licensed thugs" (aka "lawyers") are in a world of their own when it comes to setting the rules, bullying and setting charges (aka "fees"), which one can only describe as "obscene".

When seeking "justice" when one is wronged, always try to avoid court and settle the matter OUTSIDE.

aka "Pick your battles wisely".