Thursday, July 14, 2005
Lawyers on NKF suit: It was a mistake
Disclaimer: I do not condemn nor commend.
Lawyers on NKF suit: It was a mistake
By Tan May Ping
July 14, 2005
LAWYERS The New Paper spoke to said they were surprised that the NKF went ahead with the suit in the first place.
It was a mistake from the start.
By doing so, they opened themselves to much unwanted scrutiny.
Criminal lawyer Shashi Nathan said it was difficult for the NKF to prove its case because it was clear to anyone reading the article, or in the evidence before the court, that there was no malice in it.
And that the allegations made could all be justified.
Mr Nathan, who has handled various defamation cases during his 12 years as a lawyer, added: 'I'm surprised they even decided to sue.'
Mr Anthony Soh, a civil lawyer with Colin Ng & Partners, also felt that the NKF shouldn't have gone to court.
Mr Soh, who has more than 15 years' experience, added: 'They went into it hoping to repair any bad publicity they may have got, but it looks as if some of the revelations may have backfired on them.'
Likewise, the lawyers weren't surprised when the NKF withdrew its case.
'It was a wise move,' said Mr Soh.
Said Mr Nathan, a partner at Harry Elias Partnership: 'I couldn't see this going on after Monday's hearing. Too much damage had already been done.'
SURPRISED
However, another veteran lawyer, Mr Peter Low, who defended Father Joachim Kang, said he was surprised the NKF withdrew the case after it had started. That's unusual in defamation cases, he said.
When asked what his advice would have been, Mr Nathan said he would have been reluctant to pursue the claim if he had had access to all the information.
Among the startling revelations was the disclosure of the NKF chief's salary.
Even though there isn't a legal requirement to reveal salaries, the courts may demand it where such information is relevant, Mr Nathan explained.
He added: 'In a case like this where the issue of the spending of public money is involved, the questions on his salary were very correctly put because they gave the court a better picture of the organisation of the charity and how it is run.'
But even though the road ahead for the NKF appears uncertain, Mr Nathan doubts that donors would turn their backs on the organisation.
He said: 'Its moral position has been weakened, but it won't stop people from donating money because it is for a very good cause.'
Lawyers on NKF suit: It was a mistake
By Tan May Ping
July 14, 2005
LAWYERS The New Paper spoke to said they were surprised that the NKF went ahead with the suit in the first place.
It was a mistake from the start.
By doing so, they opened themselves to much unwanted scrutiny.
Criminal lawyer Shashi Nathan said it was difficult for the NKF to prove its case because it was clear to anyone reading the article, or in the evidence before the court, that there was no malice in it.
And that the allegations made could all be justified.
Mr Nathan, who has handled various defamation cases during his 12 years as a lawyer, added: 'I'm surprised they even decided to sue.'
Mr Anthony Soh, a civil lawyer with Colin Ng & Partners, also felt that the NKF shouldn't have gone to court.
Mr Soh, who has more than 15 years' experience, added: 'They went into it hoping to repair any bad publicity they may have got, but it looks as if some of the revelations may have backfired on them.'
Likewise, the lawyers weren't surprised when the NKF withdrew its case.
'It was a wise move,' said Mr Soh.
Said Mr Nathan, a partner at Harry Elias Partnership: 'I couldn't see this going on after Monday's hearing. Too much damage had already been done.'
SURPRISED
However, another veteran lawyer, Mr Peter Low, who defended Father Joachim Kang, said he was surprised the NKF withdrew the case after it had started. That's unusual in defamation cases, he said.
When asked what his advice would have been, Mr Nathan said he would have been reluctant to pursue the claim if he had had access to all the information.
Among the startling revelations was the disclosure of the NKF chief's salary.
Even though there isn't a legal requirement to reveal salaries, the courts may demand it where such information is relevant, Mr Nathan explained.
He added: 'In a case like this where the issue of the spending of public money is involved, the questions on his salary were very correctly put because they gave the court a better picture of the organisation of the charity and how it is run.'
But even though the road ahead for the NKF appears uncertain, Mr Nathan doubts that donors would turn their backs on the organisation.
He said: 'Its moral position has been weakened, but it won't stop people from donating money because it is for a very good cause.'
