If a private members club gets embroiled into a lawsuit in order to resolve an internal dispute , that journey inevitably places immense stress and worry on all parties concerned. This of course begs the question of whether " going to court " was the right decision or not ?
Wise men will always point out that it is better to reach a compromise before the litigation process starts rather than later. The further down the line they travel , the more difficult it is to stop.......but waiting for them at the end could well be the spectre of bankruptcy. Indeed , litigation is like being on a slippery slope , accelerating headlong towards financial oblivion and long term illness . Unfortunately , once lawyers get heavily involved in the process , the likelihood of one side backing down or conceding becomes a fast fading hope.
The problem of going all the way with a seemingly unresolvable dispute is that neither party ever comes away unscathed. Apart from the financial damage , there are other consequences such as the devastating emotional, physical and psychological damage , which they heap upon themselves and each other..... not to mention dozens of others caught up in the cross-fire.
In all scenarios like this each party has his/her own group of supporters. Consequently . irreparable schisms will appear that can split clubs apart. Sides will be taken , battle lines will be drawn up and hostilities between the two camps will start to escalate.
However , what is worse..... and should never must ignored...... is the ongoing emotional , physical and psychological damage , which impacts not only the the two parties involved , but also their families as well. The threat , the fear , the anxiety of " going to court " with " costs esculating by the day " all intensify as time moves on. Moreover , since the law is such a blunt and imprecise instrument predicting outcomes can never be predicted , and so the nagging uncertainty just adds to the stress . Often one party pins his/her hopes on a very powerful and supportive legal precedent, but there is always the danger that a judge might create a precedent of his own , which becomes an exception to the rule. This can be done by distinguishing the case on the facts , where one or two new material facts can make that significant difference. In situations where there are conflicting precedents , a judge will then decide which one has the more influential bearing. In other words , going to court is like taking part in a lottery , with no guarantee whatsoever of winning.
Often, the litigation process can run into months if not years. This means that justice may be denied or diluted because of the lengthy time delay. Effective justice needs to be immediate , for when it is delayed the victory can become very hollow indeed.
However, the real agony comes at the court hearing itself , when both parties and witnesses will encounter the most harrowing experience of their lives . Lawyers rarely take prisoners. They of course are the only true winners, who paradoxically tell their respective clients " you appear to have a strong case ". How can that be I ask myself ? Once inside the court room , under cross-examination, optimism quickly turns into an ordeal, where no one escapes unscathed. The parties and witnesses alike are often " ripped apart " by these highly trained, extremely skillful , silver-tongued assassins.
Frustration , anxiety and pressure will certainly engulf both parties , should a civil dispute goes all the way to a court hearing. So the key question now becomes whether or not the judge's decision was worth all that pain and suffering ?.
Financial costs can be economically crippling , and the psychological damage also knows no boundaries. Complex cases are of course the ultimate nightmare , especially when the dispute involves uncharted areas of the law. To embark on a legal journey where there is just a slightest whiff of pending doom has to be viewed as " utter madness ".
Even if a compromise resolution could not be sought at the beginning , then such a goal must become the priority midway through the process , by looking for and agreeing to ADR ( alternative dispute resolution ). To argue that mediation or arbitration is not an appropriate option flies in the face of good old common sense. What can possibly be gained from remaining stubborn or stupid. Accepting a compromise is not capitulation : it is making the best of a bad situation. Moreover , both parties should not be thinking about themselves , their pride and egos , but recognising the fact that a protracted law suit will severely impact on many other club and family members too. Rejecting ADR is often a choice one or both parties will inevitably come to regret.
Indeed , with so many wise, old proverbs to fall back on , I would implore any party to a dispute to consider and digest the following :
- two wrongs never make a right
- pick the lesser of two evils
- fools rush in where angels fear to tread
- cut one's coat according to one's cloth
- fool and his money are soon parted
- better to lose a saddle than a horse
No comments:
Post a Comment