When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Friday 8 January 2010
More go for mediation in big money disputes
Litigation is making way for mediation, going by the rising number of high-level disputes involving big money that have been brought before the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC).
It’s cheaper and more private than going to court for claims
By K C Vijayan, Law Correspondent 04 January 2010
Litigation is making way for mediation, going by the rising number of high-level disputes involving big money that have been brought before the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC).
In 2007, 65 cases were presented before mediators, involving claims of some $138million.
Up to November last year, 92 disputes were settled, with the sums involved more than doubling to $320million.
Lower costs and speedier settlements behind closed doors are key reasons for the centre’s popularity.
The alternative is a legal suit in the High Court, requiring both sides to dig in their heels as their lawyers do battle.
The SMC is at the apex of Singapore’s mediation complex, which includes the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre and community-based mediation centres which address neighbourhood and other miscellaneous spats.
High Court judges and court registrars can refer cases for mediation. The parties involved can also apply for such help.
Each case is assigned a mediator, who is usually a former Supreme Court judge, senior lawyer, or professional.
Unlike a court case or arbitration, the mediator does not make a judgment on the case, but is there to help the parties reach a mutual agreement on how best to settle the dispute.
A spokesman for the centre said that more than seven out of every 10 cases that go for mediation are settled, with 90per cent of these settled within a day.
Almost 40per cent involve construction disputes, while another 20per cent concern company and sales spats.
Mediators and lawyers say mediation offers wider solutions that the courts cannot provide and allows parties to control the outcomes in a confidential setting that avoids the public glare.
One example: A landlord sued a tenant for unpaid rent. The tenant had withheld payment, claiming the property was in a poor state.
After talking before a mediator for several hours, both came close to inking a deal but the tenant held out and insisted on withholding a few thousand dollars.
By then, both landlord and tenant refused to bridge the gap and wanted to go to court.
In the end, they arrived at a face-saving way out by donating those last few thousand dollars to a charity in their joint names.
‘In mediation, you get a win-win ending, unlike the courts where one party loses and another wins,’ said lawyer Jeeva Joethy.
Mediation is also much cheaper than suing, he said, adding: ‘No doubt lawyers personally do not benefit as much if more opt for mediation, but it is for the greater good of society.’
For example, parties pay a one-time administration fee of $250. Then, it is a minimum of $900 per party for a day’s hearing, depending on the size of the amount in dispute.
The SMC itself touts mediation’s ‘substantial’ cost savings, as compared to slugging it out in the High Court. ‘It is not unusual for parties to save as much as $80,000 in total,’ it says.
About half of the 120 or so mediators are legally trained and include former Supreme Court judges and senior counsel. Others emanate from various professional backgrounds and include engineers, architects and doctors.
Lawyer Amolat Singh says the rise in numbers is also due to a proactive stance adopted by the courts, which notify parties of the mediation option.
He added: ‘Sometimes, the crux of a dispute has nothing to do with the sums involved but a loss of personal standing, and therefore an apology will do - which courts cannot order...’
Mediator Serene Wee, chief executive of the Singapore Academy of Law, says cases involving questions of law should go before the courts. But most disputes stem from disagreements over facts, which are better settled via mediation.
Mediation’s role, she said, is ‘to remove the noise and clutter, then you can see a clear line from where the dispute starts and where the parties depart from each other’.
1 comment:
More go for mediation in big money disputes
It’s cheaper and more private than going to court for claims
By K C Vijayan, Law Correspondent
04 January 2010
Litigation is making way for mediation, going by the rising number of high-level disputes involving big money that have been brought before the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC).
In 2007, 65 cases were presented before mediators, involving claims of some $138million.
Up to November last year, 92 disputes were settled, with the sums involved more than doubling to $320million.
Lower costs and speedier settlements behind closed doors are key reasons for the centre’s popularity.
The alternative is a legal suit in the High Court, requiring both sides to dig in their heels as their lawyers do battle.
The SMC is at the apex of Singapore’s mediation complex, which includes the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre and community-based mediation centres which address neighbourhood and other miscellaneous spats.
High Court judges and court registrars can refer cases for mediation. The parties involved can also apply for such help.
Each case is assigned a mediator, who is usually a former Supreme Court judge, senior lawyer, or professional.
Unlike a court case or arbitration, the mediator does not make a judgment on the case, but is there to help the parties reach a mutual agreement on how best to settle the dispute.
A spokesman for the centre said that more than seven out of every 10 cases that go for mediation are settled, with 90per cent of these settled within a day.
Almost 40per cent involve construction disputes, while another 20per cent concern company and sales spats.
Mediators and lawyers say mediation offers wider solutions that the courts cannot provide and allows parties to control the outcomes in a confidential setting that avoids the public glare.
One example: A landlord sued a tenant for unpaid rent. The tenant had withheld payment, claiming the property was in a poor state.
After talking before a mediator for several hours, both came close to inking a deal but the tenant held out and insisted on withholding a few thousand dollars.
By then, both landlord and tenant refused to bridge the gap and wanted to go to court.
In the end, they arrived at a face-saving way out by donating those last few thousand dollars to a charity in their joint names.
‘In mediation, you get a win-win ending, unlike the courts where one party loses and another wins,’ said lawyer Jeeva Joethy.
Mediation is also much cheaper than suing, he said, adding: ‘No doubt lawyers personally do not benefit as much if more opt for mediation, but it is for the greater good of society.’
For example, parties pay a one-time administration fee of $250. Then, it is a minimum of $900 per party for a day’s hearing, depending on the size of the amount in dispute.
The SMC itself touts mediation’s ‘substantial’ cost savings, as compared to slugging it out in the High Court. ‘It is not unusual for parties to save as much as $80,000 in total,’ it says.
About half of the 120 or so mediators are legally trained and include former Supreme Court judges and senior counsel. Others emanate from various professional backgrounds and include engineers, architects and doctors.
Lawyer Amolat Singh says the rise in numbers is also due to a proactive stance adopted by the courts, which notify parties of the mediation option.
He added: ‘Sometimes, the crux of a dispute has nothing to do with the sums involved but a loss of personal standing, and therefore an apology will do - which courts cannot order...’
Mediator Serene Wee, chief executive of the Singapore Academy of Law, says cases involving questions of law should go before the courts. But most disputes stem from disagreements over facts, which are better settled via mediation.
Mediation’s role, she said, is ‘to remove the noise and clutter, then you can see a clear line from where the dispute starts and where the parties depart from each other’.
Post a Comment