NKF CHAIRMAN PLEASED WITH DURAI'S DECISION TO CONCEDE
Law firm to donate fees back to NKF
By Leong Ching
January 12, 2007
THEY worked on the case for months, though the law firm was taking no fees.
In a statement yesterday, National Kidney Foundation chairman Gerard Ee described how its legal team laboured to prepare its case against its ex-CEO, Mr T T Durai.
'(They) have worked tirelessly over the last eight months. I personally know that they worked about 24/7 right through December including Christmas and the New Year,' he said.
'They spent months painstakingly tracing and assembling the evidence and then making sense of it. They also chased after every lead and managed to recover vital information through computer forensics technology.'
The NKF is represented by Senior Counsel K Shanmugam and a team of lawyers from Allen & Gledhill.
The law firm is donating its fees back to the NKF.
The firm had accepted the case after NKF was turned down when it approached two other law firms in late 2005. It was told by the other lawyers that it did not have a good case.
It was only in May last year that it found Mr Shanmugam who felt it did have a good case - and he went into it with his trademark aggressiveness.
Though it was expected to be a long and complex trial against Mr Durai, NKF was determined to pursue the case, said Mr Ee.
'On 15 July 2005, the new Board members were appointed. As a charity that is answerable to the public, we had to look into the conduct of the old management,' he said.
On the third day of the NKF trial, Mr Durai gave up the fight.
Even Mr Shanmugam, when asked if he was surprised at the Mr Durai's surrender yesterday, said: 'I did not expect it at this stage.'
He said he had fought the case 'in the most effective way' by establishing liability first, and then debating about damages later.
He also told the judge: 'I told Your Honour that I would take a longer time with my opening, in the hopes of shortening the trial. That proved to be prescient.'
Early in the day, before the court was filled, reporters approached one of Mr T T Durai's lawyers, Mr Moiz Sithawalla, for a copy of the text of their opening statements. He declined to hand it out.
Why not?
'I am not at liberty to say,' he said.
It transpired, of course, that he didn't need to say anything.
Indeed, only one lawyer, Mr Shanmugam, spoke yesterday. And even then briefly.
At 5.30 pm, after a day of meeting in chambers, Mr Shanmugam stood up in court and said that Mr Durai had 'conceded judgment, with costs.'
The four left standing are former chairman Richard Yong, former treasurer Loo Say San, former board member Matilda Chua and Durai's business associate, Mr Pharis Aboobacker.
BLINK?
Why did Mr Durai blink first?
Perhaps it was because he had sat through the Singapore Press Holdings defamation action and knew what it entailed. Public scrutiny, intense media attention, and a daily dose of strong language from the lawyer.
He would have known what it was going to be like.
With Mr Durai's admission, the trial may be shorter than the eight weeks originally planned.
One reason for Mr Durai's decision could be the pressure of the past two days, when he had to sit in court and listen to the accusations thrown at him.
Mr Shanmugam is ordinarily a soft-spoken man.
Outside the court, reporters have to struggle to make out what he is saying.
But on his feet, and in front of the judge, he was loud and clear. And 'hypocrite', 'liar', 'living in gilded fiefdom', 'snout completely in the trough' - these were some of the choice phrases he flung at the defendants.
Everything he said in court had been known, both to Mr Durai and his lawyers.
But it was buried in the 20,000 pages of documents Mr Durai's lawyers received and thus might not have struck with the same force.
In July 2005, Mr Durai withdrew his suit against SPH after being cross-examined.
Perhaps he did not want to go through something like that again.
FIGHT GOES ON?
With the main man out, who will keep on fighting?
Ms Matilda Chua's demeanour was quite different at a tea break yesterday, compared to her chirpy mood earlier. (See report on Page 4.)
Lawyers Peter Low and Chia Boon Teck, who are acting for Mr Yong and Mr Loo, have said that they will keep their options open.
One key issue must surely be cost. Part of the suit implicates third parties Alwyn Lim, Lawrence Chia, Kweh Soon Han and Chow Kok Fong, former NKF directors whom they hold as being part of the decision-making process.
If the defendants are found liable, these four could be held liable as well.
Now these four 'third parties' have their own lawyers, who will fight their case against these accusations.
If the four defendants in the NKF suit lose both against the NKF and the third parties (Mr Lim, Prof Chia, Mr Kweh and Mr Chow), their bills could be very large indeed.
They have one day to make up their minds - court will continue on Friday.
WHAT'S NEXT?
The lawyers are likely to meet again in a year's time, some observers say, when they have to debate on how much Mr Durai will have to pay. For now, NKF is claiming $12 million against all five defendants.
In the meantime, Mr Durai, Mr Yong, Mr Loo and Ms Chua have also been charged with various criminal offences, and the trial has been set to start just three days into the week after the civil suits are expected to end.
Mr Durai faces two charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act of intentionally deceiving the NKF by submitting false documents.
Such offences carry a penalty of up to five years in jail or a fine of up to $100,000 or both.
By Leong Ching
January 12, 2007
THEY worked on the case for months, though the law firm was taking no fees.
In a statement yesterday, National Kidney Foundation chairman Gerard Ee described how its legal team laboured to prepare its case against its ex-CEO, Mr T T Durai.
'(They) have worked tirelessly over the last eight months. I personally know that they worked about 24/7 right through December including Christmas and the New Year,' he said.
'They spent months painstakingly tracing and assembling the evidence and then making sense of it. They also chased after every lead and managed to recover vital information through computer forensics technology.'
The NKF is represented by Senior Counsel K Shanmugam and a team of lawyers from Allen & Gledhill.
The law firm is donating its fees back to the NKF.
The firm had accepted the case after NKF was turned down when it approached two other law firms in late 2005. It was told by the other lawyers that it did not have a good case.
It was only in May last year that it found Mr Shanmugam who felt it did have a good case - and he went into it with his trademark aggressiveness.
Though it was expected to be a long and complex trial against Mr Durai, NKF was determined to pursue the case, said Mr Ee.
'On 15 July 2005, the new Board members were appointed. As a charity that is answerable to the public, we had to look into the conduct of the old management,' he said.
On the third day of the NKF trial, Mr Durai gave up the fight.
Even Mr Shanmugam, when asked if he was surprised at the Mr Durai's surrender yesterday, said: 'I did not expect it at this stage.'
He said he had fought the case 'in the most effective way' by establishing liability first, and then debating about damages later.
He also told the judge: 'I told Your Honour that I would take a longer time with my opening, in the hopes of shortening the trial. That proved to be prescient.'
Early in the day, before the court was filled, reporters approached one of Mr T T Durai's lawyers, Mr Moiz Sithawalla, for a copy of the text of their opening statements. He declined to hand it out.
Why not?
'I am not at liberty to say,' he said.
It transpired, of course, that he didn't need to say anything.
Indeed, only one lawyer, Mr Shanmugam, spoke yesterday. And even then briefly.
At 5.30 pm, after a day of meeting in chambers, Mr Shanmugam stood up in court and said that Mr Durai had 'conceded judgment, with costs.'
The four left standing are former chairman Richard Yong, former treasurer Loo Say San, former board member Matilda Chua and Durai's business associate, Mr Pharis Aboobacker.
BLINK?
Why did Mr Durai blink first?
Perhaps it was because he had sat through the Singapore Press Holdings defamation action and knew what it entailed. Public scrutiny, intense media attention, and a daily dose of strong language from the lawyer.
He would have known what it was going to be like.
With Mr Durai's admission, the trial may be shorter than the eight weeks originally planned.
One reason for Mr Durai's decision could be the pressure of the past two days, when he had to sit in court and listen to the accusations thrown at him.
Mr Shanmugam is ordinarily a soft-spoken man.
Outside the court, reporters have to struggle to make out what he is saying.
But on his feet, and in front of the judge, he was loud and clear. And 'hypocrite', 'liar', 'living in gilded fiefdom', 'snout completely in the trough' - these were some of the choice phrases he flung at the defendants.
Everything he said in court had been known, both to Mr Durai and his lawyers.
But it was buried in the 20,000 pages of documents Mr Durai's lawyers received and thus might not have struck with the same force.
In July 2005, Mr Durai withdrew his suit against SPH after being cross-examined.
Perhaps he did not want to go through something like that again.
FIGHT GOES ON?
With the main man out, who will keep on fighting?
Ms Matilda Chua's demeanour was quite different at a tea break yesterday, compared to her chirpy mood earlier. (See report on Page 4.)
Lawyers Peter Low and Chia Boon Teck, who are acting for Mr Yong and Mr Loo, have said that they will keep their options open.
One key issue must surely be cost. Part of the suit implicates third parties Alwyn Lim, Lawrence Chia, Kweh Soon Han and Chow Kok Fong, former NKF directors whom they hold as being part of the decision-making process.
If the defendants are found liable, these four could be held liable as well.
Now these four 'third parties' have their own lawyers, who will fight their case against these accusations.
If the four defendants in the NKF suit lose both against the NKF and the third parties (Mr Lim, Prof Chia, Mr Kweh and Mr Chow), their bills could be very large indeed.
They have one day to make up their minds - court will continue on Friday.
WHAT'S NEXT?
The lawyers are likely to meet again in a year's time, some observers say, when they have to debate on how much Mr Durai will have to pay. For now, NKF is claiming $12 million against all five defendants.
In the meantime, Mr Durai, Mr Yong, Mr Loo and Ms Chua have also been charged with various criminal offences, and the trial has been set to start just three days into the week after the civil suits are expected to end.
Mr Durai faces two charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act of intentionally deceiving the NKF by submitting false documents.
Such offences carry a penalty of up to five years in jail or a fine of up to $100,000 or both.
posted by khimsiu at 11:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home