Why I Now Advise Against Suing the Powerful: Lessons from Stress, Strike-Outs, and the Court’s Obsession with Evidence.

 

Do not initiate legal proceedings against anyone—especially the rich, the powerful, or public authorities—unless you have an overwhelming, evidence-ready case and are prepared for years of stress that can damage your health. Stress is widely described as a leading contributor to serious illness, and litigation multiplies it in ways that are hard to reverse. Even when you are convinced of the facts and the justice of your position, your lawyer may still tell you that “there may be something we don’t know.” That warning is rarely empty.

 

In my own matter, my lawyer added the Kota Kinabalu City Hall (DBKK) and the Ministry of Housing as defendants despite my clear reluctance. Both parties applied to strike out the claims against them and succeeded. When I asked why he had joined them, he explained that in an earlier case a judge had asked why he had not pursued the authorities. He joined them here simply to pre-empt that question. The strategy backfired.

 

Only today did I read the affidavit filed by Rayner Ricky Sedomon of DBKK in support of the strike-out. It is densely technical. I am not confident my lawyer fully grasped its implications or was equipped to answer it effectively. The hearing took place in chambers. I was not present and had no opportunity to hear the arguments or the judge’s questions. I learned of the successful strike-out only later, from my lawyer. That delay and the closed nature of the proceedings left me with no real sense of what had actually been decided or why.

 

Throughout, I was repeatedly told that the court cares only about evidence. Logical inconsistencies in the other side’s statements, or matters that seem obvious on the facts, carry little weight without contemporaneous documents, clear admissions, or other admissible proof. No one stepped forward to assist or even to clarify the practical realities. The burden remained entirely on me, while the other parties—particularly the public bodies—had institutional resources and procedural tools that individuals rarely match.

 

The central question that remains is whether any of this was worth it. The financial cost, the time consumed, the emotional strain, the opacity of chamber hearings, and the pure evidentiary threshold all compound. Once public authorities or well-resourced parties are involved, the asymmetry becomes pronounced: they can absorb delay, deploy technical affidavits, and exit via strike-out applications, while the individual bears the stress and the residual uncertainty. Even a lawyer’s precautionary decision, taken to avoid a judicial remark, can expand the case in ways that ultimately weaken rather than strengthen it.

 

In short, the combination of evidentiary strictness, limited transparency in interlocutory proceedings, the absence of practical support, and the sheer stress of prolonged litigation makes the decision to sue—especially powerful defendants—one that should be approached with extreme caution. What feels like a straightforward injustice on the ground can become a long, technical, and largely private contest in which logic alone is not enough and the personal toll is real. For most people, the wiser course is to resolve matters by other means or to accept that some disputes are simply not worth taking to court.