As I understand, before any case can be allotted court time, the court registra will examine the complexity/validity of the case before scheduling an amount of court time before well paid judges to hear out a case.
In the b/m case of 'Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and another', I cannot understand why the court would even have to focus on the issue of vicarious liability if the said contractor who damaged a neighbour's building was insured and would agree to compensate for the damages. Instead of focusing on whether Mr Munib Md was vicariously liable, wouldn't justice be more economically achieved if the courts focused upon placing an injunction on continuing any further damaging works and compelling the rectifications/ immediate compensation of damages caused to neighbouring buildings, especially if the contractor is not only solvent but also insured?
Shouldn't the issue of vicarious liability only arise if the contractor is either bankrupt or disputes the damages caused?
Perhaps the issue of vicarious liability would NOT EVEN HAVE OCCURRED if Singapore court judges (instead of dawdling on ivory-tower type superfluous issues), had heard the case at short notice an issued immediate stop work order injunctions so that the damages would not have grown so immense and severe at first instance.
It seems to me that Singapore judges have a lot of free time to kill (just churning out work for themselves) and thus perhaps, the Minister of Finance might consider REDUCING the funding to the Judiciary for the coming work year.
In the b/m case of 'Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and another', I cannot understand why the court would even have to focus on the issue of vicarious liability if the said contractor who damaged a neighbour's building was insured and would agree to compensate for the damages. Instead of focusing on whether Mr Munib Md was vicariously liable, wouldn't justice be more economically achieved if the courts focused upon placing an injunction on continuing any further damaging works and compelling the rectifications/ immediate compensation of damages caused to neighbouring buildings, especially if the contractor is not only solvent but also insured?
Shouldn't the issue of vicarious liability only arise if the contractor is either bankrupt or disputes the damages caused?
Perhaps the issue of vicarious liability would NOT EVEN HAVE OCCURRED if Singapore court judges (instead of dawdling on ivory-tower type superfluous issues), had heard the case at short notice an issued immediate stop work order injunctions so that the damages would not have grown so immense and severe at first instance.
It seems to me that Singapore judges have a lot of free time to kill (just churning out work for themselves) and thus perhaps, the Minister of Finance might consider REDUCING the funding to the Judiciary for the coming work year.
And whereas Wee Shu Min, daughter of PAP MP Wee Siew Kim, in
