In June, my colleague Boon Hun wrote about how a parent had allegedly wanted to sue a school for confiscating his son’s phone.
For three months.
You can read all about that here.
Anyways, a sequel has been released, and the ending is kinda… anti-climatic.
But before that…
What’s the deal now?
Here’s a brief recap for the sake of those who were too lazy to click on the link above: a schoolboy had his phone confiscated by the school for three months, and his parent was livid.
While this might have been normally understandable (like 3 months, really?), the thing is that the schoolboy had been aware of the school rule (no usage of phones during school hours), and still fluctuated it.
In army lingo, he tried to test the system but failed. Badly.
The parent, despite being aware of the rule as well, chose to side with his son.
He threatened legal actions against the school, quoting “a three-month confiscation is disproportionate to the offence” as one of the many reasons behind it.
Everything after that was a distinct blur, until now.
Because it’s been revealed that the parent in question has actually dropped the case.
In fact, the parent was actually ordered by the court to “pay costs to the school.”
What exactly happened?
The father filed a court action, “alleging that retaining the phone amounted to the tort of conversion, which involves denying a person’s rights to his property.”
He also applied for an interim court injunction “to have the phone returned immediately pending settlement of the case.” This was however rejected by District Judge Clement Julien Tan on 28 April.
Reason? The judge ruled that the principal was right in holding onto the phones, given school rules. Additionally, the school had also recognized that the phone would be returned by the end of the three-month period.
On the father’s side, however, there was no established “special circumstance” to enable the interim injunction’s approval.
Thus, the rejection.
The parent has been ordered by the court to pay costs to the school, which must have surely been a sucker blow for him. Dropping charges against your enemy and having to pay him? That, bro, must suck. Big Time.
On the other hand, the school has stuck to its policy on the use of mobile phones. That despite all the “trouble” its policy had “caused”.
“This requires our students to keep their handphones in their lockers during school hours,” a spokesman said.
While not confirmed, it’s speculated that the student has left the school.
Moral of the story
Don’t test the system; be a good boy or girl.
If you do test the system and get caught, just suck it up.
Don’t bring your parents into the mix.
Or it might just create a whole lot more trouble than you asked for.
Since you’re here, why not watch a video about an NTU student who went all out to impress his crush, only to end up in…tragedy? Here, watch it and do remember to share it (and also subscribe to Goody Feed YouTube channel)!
This article was first published on goodyfeed.com
- Identity Fraud Of Zoe Tay & Aileen Tan Resulted in Many Fake News on FB
- Lamest Scam: Sign for a Mobile Plan, Give the Phone, Get $500 & Be Blacklisted Forever
- J&J To Pay Over $500M To Woman Who Allegedly Got Cancer From Their Product
Do you love writing? Do you want a platform to showcase your works? Goody Feed is looking for part-time writers to join the team! Click here to find out more!
Featured image: Quickbase
Latest posts by Zhi Hao (see all)
- Breadtalk Bubble Tea Pearl Bun Review: Winning Combination That’s Not Overly Sweet - September 22, 2018
- Don’t say Bojio: Free Buffet & Cake on Your Birthday & Other Promotions at Seoul Garden - September 22, 2018
- Nas Daily Buay Tahan a S’porean’s Complaint & Passively Aggressively Fired Back - September 20, 2018