S'pore woman rejects work injury payout worth 6 months…
0 reactions
S'pore woman rejects work injury payout worth 6 months' salary, sues employer instead, loses case & ordered to pay S$11,577 legal costs
The judgement reads like a roasting of lawyers from both sides.
https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2026\_SGDC\_195
“They (defendent’s lawyers) had a tin ear for their own impermissible questions at trial. And their eyes could not alight on the holding in my judgment, prompting them to write to the Court to ask: “For the avoidance of doubt, can we confirm that Your Honour has dismissed the Claimant’s case with costs.” On the other hand, radio silence issued from the Claimant’s lawyers at the close of business on 8 June 2026. So I was left to write the following judgment without either counsel’s assistance.”
Don’t give face, name them all here “She can afford to instruct a quad of senior lawyers (namely, Mr Dube Vinod Kumar (called in 1979), Mr R Kalamohan (called in 1983), Ms Mary Magdeline Pereira (called in 2002), and Ms Shanthi Elavarasi d/o R Kalamohan (called in 2011)) from two different firms to collaborate and work on her claim since May 2022, at the latest.” Then to point out in para 10 that the lawyers made a dumb mistake claiming for a wrong client from defendent’s insurer and in concluding para mention that “more appropriate for the Claimant to consider whether her lawyers have fulfilled their duties set out by the High Court in *Mookan Sadaiyakumar v Kim Hock Corp Pte Ltd and another appeal* \[2020\] 4 SLR 555 at \[49\], since only she would know the instructions she gave and the advice she received, and thereafter to proceed as she thinks fit.” So is he suggesting that she should sue her own lawyers for such slipshod work?
#local
source
The judgement reads like a roasting of lawyers from both sides.
https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2026\_SGDC\_195
“They (defendent’s lawyers) had a tin ear for their own impermissible questions at trial. And their eyes could not alight on the holding in my judgment, prompting them to write to the Court to ask: “For the avoidance of doubt, can we confirm that Your Honour has dismissed the Claimant’s case with costs.” On the other hand, radio silence issued from the Claimant’s lawyers at the close of business on 8 June 2026. So I was left to write the following judgment without either counsel’s assistance.”
Don’t give face, name them all here “She can afford to instruct a quad of senior lawyers (namely, Mr Dube Vinod Kumar (called in 1979), Mr R Kalamohan (called in 1983), Ms Mary Magdeline Pereira (called in 2002), and Ms Shanthi Elavarasi d/o R Kalamohan (called in 2011)) from two different firms to collaborate and work on her claim since May 2022, at the latest.” Then to point out in para 10 that the lawyers made a dumb mistake claiming for a wrong client from defendent’s insurer and in concluding para mention that “more appropriate for the Claimant to consider whether her lawyers have fulfilled their duties set out by the High Court in *Mookan Sadaiyakumar v Kim Hock Corp Pte Ltd and another appeal* \[2020\] 4 SLR 555 at \[49\], since only she would know the instructions she gave and the advice she received, and thereafter to proceed as she thinks fit.” So is he suggesting that she should sue her own lawyers for such slipshod work?
#local
source
| 2,000 mlx | |
| 3 | |
| 0 |