News Feed

October 27, 2016 - United win Manchester derby Juan Mata struck to win a tight Man ... +++ October 27, 2016 - IAAF wants Bolt’s services KINGSTON, Jamaica – IAAF Pres ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Proper shutdown protocol needed, says Bynoe The Department of Emergency Managem ... +++ October 27, 2016 - ‘Out of touch’ Economist Ryan Straughn says the la ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Lowe looking to protect the south coast A senior policymaker has warned tha ... +++ October 27, 2016 - Road Hockey 5s hit halfway mark After three weeks of competition th ... +++

Trying to understand ‘nuances’

“If it please the court, I’m struggling to fully understand a couple of “nuances” here, namely:

1: If I had a case resting comfortably in the “correct and appropriate legal process”, for very many years, where is the equity in now compelling me to do something in 30 day’s time, (in a virtual “legal blink”), or face a fait accompli to have my interests either turned into “legal anti-matter”, or “adjudged” by a brand-new, untested, (and arguably rush-trained) cadre of quasi-professionals?

2: I presume that where a contract — or anything else in dispute before the Civil Judicature — has arbitration so enshrined, then there is no problem. If so, it should have gone there a long time ago, and most likley, would have saved perhaps both parties, a lot in legal fees and expenses.

But from whence comes the power to compel anyone to turn away from the courts? I can see the courts “requesting” this of litigants, but compelling any one before the court, comes uncomfortably close to duress, from the very fount where duress is normally put to the sword!

3: Will litigants who feel injured by the arbitration awards, be able to appeal? Would the CCJ accept any “evidence” proceeding from ADR, or “precedents” which might be set in the process?

4: What is the basis for setting what seems like an arbitrary cut-off date (or year), which shall henceforth separate, the sheep from goats?

5: Wherefore any assurances, that if the efforts to shift the back-log to “forced arbitration” do not work, that we nevertheless have a “Plan B” to back-up the existing process? Could such a “Plan B” be instituted now, as a matter of urgency, to at least start the remaining cases, moving?

6: If the new arbitration process does indeed clear the back-log, wherefore the assurances that the remaining cases will not suffer from the “normal efficacy” of the system, and perhaps similarly have “Son of ADR” visited upon them, a couple years down the road? Ad nauseum, etcetera.

At least, my three friends who collect my garbage, do so regularly, willingly and well. A really fine bunch of guys, who have no pricks of conscience, when they collect their pay.”

— Tony Webster

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *