Court Certified Translation Services in Singapore

Send us their objection and the passages in dispute. Our translator prepares a written response setting out the source wording, why it was rendered that way, and where a fair alternative reading exists. Most challenges are testing whether anyone actually checked the work, and they fold at that point. Where the objection has merit, we say so plainly to you first. An expert who defends a genuine error is worth nothing to your case.

This is most of our court work. Slang stays, with a short bracket note explaining what it means in that context rather than a polished substitute. Emoji are described rather than deleted, because a thumbs up after a price can be the acceptance your claim turns on. Timestamps and sender names are never touched. If a message is cut off at the edge of the screenshot, we say so instead of guessing the rest.

Yes, and send the index at the start rather than afterwards. Exhibit marks, page numbers and document order are all carried across, so a judge moving between the two versions lands on the same content. Where the English runs longer and a page has to split, we mark it clearly rather than letting the numbering drift. Retrofitting pagination onto a finished translation is slow, and on a large bundle it costs a day nobody has.

Have the firm instruct us directly, in writing, stating that we are engaged for the purposes of the litigation. Handled that way we are working as your agent, which is the normal and safer route. Where a client sends papers to us on their own initiative without telling their solicitor, that is where arguments start. We sign your firm's confidentiality terms rather than asking you to sign ours.

It shows immediately unless a word list is fixed before anybody starts, and a bundle where the same contract term appears three ways is a gift to the other side. So on any split job one translator owns the list, the other follows it, and a single reviewer reads the whole thing end to end. On very large matters the same reviewer stays across every batch, even when the translating is spread over two weeks.

Often yes, and the honest answer depends on volume rather than difficulty. Send the bundle now and we will come back within hours with what can actually be done in five days and what cannot. If part of it is achievable and part is not, you will hear exactly where the line falls so your firm can decide what to prioritise. What we will not do is accept the whole job and tell you on day four.

Handwritten delivery notes and worn fax copies are ordinary work here. Where a word genuinely cannot be read, it is marked illegible with the position noted, and never filled in from context. That marking protects you, because a guessed word that turns out wrong under cross examination damages far more than a gap ever would. If a whole exhibit is beyond reading, we tell you before it goes on the invoice.

Yes, and it is a common instruction. We compare their English against the source and produce a schedule of differences, separating genuine errors from choices that are merely different but defensible. That distinction matters, because attacking a defensible rendering wastes the court's patience and your client's money. Where we find nothing significant, we will tell you that too rather than manufacture a dispute.

That is a question for your firm and ultimately for the court, and we would not presume to answer it. What we can do is make it easy to support. Our invoices break the work down by exhibit, page count and rate rather than showing a single lump sum, and we can supply the scoping note showing which pages were excluded. Ask for that format at the start and it saves an awkward conversation later.

No. Where a phrase can fairly carry two meanings we will set both out in a note and let counsel argue for the better one, which is proper and useful. Choosing the favourable reading and presenting it as the only reading is something else entirely, and it collapses the moment the other side's expert opens the file. Your case is stronger with an honest translation and a good argument than with a shaded one.

Tell us at the outset that the bundle is still growing and we hold the matter open, keeping the same translator and the same word list. Batches then come back consistent with everything already filed. A firm that closes the job and reopens it three months later with a different translator ends up with two vocabularies inside one bundle, and that is exactly the inconsistency the other side will point at.

Yes, as two steps rather than one. The recording is typed out first in the language spoken, with timestamps and speaker labels, and that transcript becomes the exhibit. The English translation then sits beside it. Doing it in that order matters, because a court comparing the audio to the English needs the middle step to exist. Skipping straight to English leaves nothing to check against.

Yes, and a good number of tribunal claims reach us that way. We will explain what a certified translation is and is not, and what an affidavit adds, in plain terms. What we cannot do is advise on your case, tell you what to file or suggest what will help you win. Those are legal questions and we are not lawyers. Where somebody clearly needs advice, we say so rather than let them guess.

We keep it so a reissue or an appeal bundle does not mean starting again, and it is never shown to anybody or used as a sample. If your firm's retention policy sets a period, tell us the number of months and we work to it, then confirm in writing once it is deleted. Plenty of firms ask for that at the end of a matter and almost nobody thinks of it at the start.