SINGAPORE - A company belonging to a self-styled expert on option trading lost an appeal yesterday against claims awarded by the Small Claims Tribunal to 48 people amounting to $176,583.
They had filed the claims after The Straits Times reported that Freely Pte Ltd's founder, Mr Clemen Chiang (picture), allegedly obtained his doctorate in option trading from an unaccredited university.
The 48 people claimed they would not have attended Mr Chiang's three-day course on option trading or bought a $960 computer program if he was not the holder of a PhD from an accredited university.
In yesterday's appeal in the High Court, Freely alleged that the company was not given a fair hearing by the Tribunal hearing in March.
The Tribunal is part of the Subordinate Courts and a Referee - who can be a Magistrate, a District Judge or a Senior Officer - can hear claims involving the sale of goods or services not exceeding $10,000.
"The Referee appeared to have made up his mind even before the hearing was concluded, as his immediate oral decision, which he read from a prepared text, took about two hours to be read out, with translation into Mandarin," said Freely's lawyer, Senior Counsel Giam Chin Toon.
But Justice Woo Bih Li, who heard yesterday's appeal, countered that it was common for judges to write their judgments and make the necessary changes, even as the hearing is ongoing.
After a day's hearing, the High Court judge dismissed Freely's appeal without citing his grounds of decision. The Tribunal has more than 400 claims against Freely still to be heard.
They had filed the claims after The Straits Times reported that Freely Pte Ltd's founder, Mr Clemen Chiang (picture), allegedly obtained his doctorate in option trading from an unaccredited university.
The 48 people claimed they would not have attended Mr Chiang's three-day course on option trading or bought a $960 computer program if he was not the holder of a PhD from an accredited university.
In yesterday's appeal in the High Court, Freely alleged that the company was not given a fair hearing by the Tribunal hearing in March.
The Tribunal is part of the Subordinate Courts and a Referee - who can be a Magistrate, a District Judge or a Senior Officer - can hear claims involving the sale of goods or services not exceeding $10,000.
"The Referee appeared to have made up his mind even before the hearing was concluded, as his immediate oral decision, which he read from a prepared text, took about two hours to be read out, with translation into Mandarin," said Freely's lawyer, Senior Counsel Giam Chin Toon.
But Justice Woo Bih Li, who heard yesterday's appeal, countered that it was common for judges to write their judgments and make the necessary changes, even as the hearing is ongoing.
After a day's hearing, the High Court judge dismissed Freely's appeal without citing his grounds of decision. The Tribunal has more than 400 claims against Freely still to be heard.
