Annual Report 2011
CONTENTS
VISION, MISSION AND VALUES 01
MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE
FOREWORD BY THE REGISTRAR 04
10
CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION 14
SIGNIFICANT EVENTS 18
- Opening of the Legal Year
- Mass Call
- International Conference on Electronic Litigation
- Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) Tea
THE SUPREME COURT BENCH 24
- Changes to the Bench
- Highlights of Judges’ Events
- Judges’ Participation in Local and Overseas Events
INTERNATIONAL PROFILE 36
- Rankings in International Surveys
- Overseas Conferences, Attachments and Speaking Engagements
- Visits by Distinguished Guests
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 42
- Supreme Court Staff Workplan Seminar
- Legal Colloquium
- Customer Service Conference
- Supreme Court Translation Audio Resource System (STARS)
- Organisational Accolades
TIMELINESS OF JUSTICE 48
- Workload Statistics
- Waiting Periods
- Caseload and Disposal of Cases relating to Disciplinary Proceedings
QUALITY OF JUSTICE 56
- Significant Decisions of the Court of Appeal
- Recent Amendments to the Rules of Court and the Practice Directions
ACCESSIBILITY TO THE COURTS 68
STAFF AND ORGANISATION 70
- Cohesion Day
- Corporate Challenge
- Staff Awards
- Staff Welfare Activities
-
- Supreme Court Organisation Chart
- Staff Photos
VISION
To establish and maintain a world-class Judiciary.
MISSION
To superintend the administration of justice.
VALUES
Integrity and Independence
Public trust and confidence in the Supreme Court rests on its integrity
and the transparency of its processes. The public must be assured
that court decisions are fair and independent, that court staff are
incorruptible, and that court records are accurate.
Quality Public Service
As a public institution dedicated to the administration of justice,
the Supreme Court seeks to meet the needs of court users, with an
emphasis on accessibility, quality and the timely delivery of services.
Learning and Innovation
The Supreme Court recognises that to be a world-class Judiciary, we
need to continually improve ourselves and our processes. We therefore
encourage learning and innovation to take the Supreme Court to the
highest levels of performance.
Ownership
We value the contributions of our staff, who are committed and proud
to be part of the Supreme Court.
01
Judges and Staff of the Supreme Court of Singapore
MESSAGE FROM
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MESSAGE FROM THE
CHIEF JUSTICE
Response of Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong delivered at
the Opening of the Legal Year 2012 on 6 January 2012
Association and Mr Junius Ho, President of the Law
Society of Hong Kong, and distinguished guests
from other Commonwealth jurisdictions. We thank
you all for being present here to participate in this
annual tradition.
Mr Attorney
Mr Wong Meng Meng SC, President of the Law
Society
Members of the Bar
Ladies and Gentlemen,
On behalf of the Judiciary, I welcome you all to
this morning’s ceremony to open the new Legal
Year. I also welcome the Chief Registrar of the
Supreme Court of Brunei, Pengiran Hajah Rostaina
binte Pengiran Haji Duraman; Mr Lim Chee Wee,
President of the Malaysian Bar Council; Mr Kumar
Ramanathan SC, Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar
04
On this occasion, we need to remind ourselves that
we live in an imperfect and unequal world and all
of us here who are involved in the administration of
justice should do our utmost in achieving fair and
just outcomes for litigants according to law. In this
connection, I wish to thank the Attorney-General
and the President of the Law Society for their
assurances of their fullest support and co-operation
for our endeavours in the coming year. I regard
these assurances not as mere platitudes uttered
only on this occasion, but as vows of a calling.
I also take note of the kind words and praise that
the Attorney-General has expressed in respect of
the contributions of Justice Kan Ting Chiu to the
administration of justice in Singapore. We share in
these tributes to him, and we wish him a stress-free
retirement.
At last year’s Opening of the Legal Year, I spoke on
three main topics: (a) the state of criminal practice
and the Criminal Bar, (b) the problem of missing
clients’ monies in conveyancing matters, and (c) the
need for a larger pool of expert litigation counsel
to represent consumers and investors, especially
in advising and representing them in important
financial or commercial claims against big business in
Message from the Chief Justice
Singapore. I am happy to note that all these concerns
have been looked into and certain measures will be
taken to alleviate some of these problems, as you
have just heard from the Attorney-General and the
President of the Law Society. I would like to add a
few more observations on these and other matters.
also mulling over whether to make prior pro bono
representation in criminal matters another criterion
for future appointments as Senior Counsel. I will
seek the views of my Judges and the Law Society
on this matter.
The state assigned counsel scheme –
“LASCO”
Mr Wong referred to the American Bar
Association’s recommendation of 50 hours of
pro bono work every year for its members, and
has suggested that global lawyers based here
might wish to make cash donations in lieu of their
domestic pro bono obligations.1 But, before
we ask others to contribute, the Bar has to lead
by example. In this regard, I am glad to note
that, among other initiatives, the Bar has in 2011
contributed about $127,000 to the Law Society’s
pro bono programme, CLAS, of which $76,000
came from the larger law firms. But the latter
group of firms can surely do better, considering
that the Law Society managed to raise more than
twice that sum at its 2011 Charity Golf Tournament.
With their lucrative corporate and civil litigation
practices, these firms sit atop of Singapore’s wealth
pole (to use the caption of a Business Times report
published in its Christmas eve edition). They are
among the greatest beneficiaries of our laws and
legal system. In corporate law firms, lawyers can
only “eat what [they] kill”. As pro bono work brings
nothing to the dinner table, one can understand
why young aspiring corporate lawyers would
be reluctant to do pro bono work. They can be
encouraged to do so if management provides
them with an incentive, such as crediting their pro
bono work with a notional income based on what
they would have earned for the firm at their normal
charge-out rates. Perhaps, law firms that are large
enough might even consider setting up pro bono
departments, as some American law firms have
done. This brings to mind another thought: the
Law Society might wish to consider publishing an
The Law Society has worked with the Supreme
Court Registry in making structural changes
to LASCO, the acronym for the state assigned
counsel scheme, in order to improve the quality of
representation in capital cases. We have constituted
a LASCO Selection Panel, whose members include
Senior Counsel and members of the Criminal Bar,
to provide a more rigorous emplacement and
assignment process for counsel to lead in LASCO
matters. We have increased the honorarium
payable to counsel, but not to market rates. We
must not forget that many of the defendants
concerned would not be able to afford what is
being paid as honorarium to the two assigned
counsel under the scheme. The value of LASCO is
not in the honorarium but counsel’s services. I am
glad that many LASCO volunteers have spoken
out publicly that the motivation for their efforts is
not the honorarium but the personal satisfaction
of providing the best possible defence for their
clients, with the added sense of achievement
if their clients are acquitted or the charges are
reduced. While the number of qualified counsel
on the Panel is certainly important, the quality of
counsel is even more crucial. In this connection, I
would urge the Senior Counsel Forum to persuade
its members to play a greater role in LASCO and
also in the Law Society’s own pro bono scheme,
ie, the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (“CLAS”). As
Senior Counsel are, by definition, the elite of the
profession, it is only right that they take the lead
in accepting pro bono work. For that reason, I am
Pro bono work
1
Speech of the President of the Law Society at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012, Singapore Law Gazette, January 2012, http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/president_
message/President_Message_for_Jan_2012.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2012) at p4.
05
annual pro bono league table, like in the US. This
will enable the public, clients, law students and the
legal community to know the rankings of law firms
in terms of giving back to society.
I am also glad that Mr Wong has provided clarity to
the meaning of pro bono.2 It is not just free work,
but free work for our poor “neighbours” without
expectation of any kind of material reward – it is
the work of the Good Samaritan. It is not free work
provided to clients or even to the Council of the Law
Society or the Singapore Academy of Law (“SAL”).
For many lawyers, pro bono as a social value
does not come from nature, but from nurture. In
the past decade, there has been an increasing
awareness of this in some developed jurisdictions.
In 2005, the American Bar Association revised
its accreditation standards for US law schools to
require that “[a] law [school] shall offer substantial
opportunities for … student participation in pro
bono activities”.3 As of 2011, 21 US law schools have
made pro bono work a graduation requirement.4
In the United Kingdom, a very recent report
prepared by the Solicitors Pro Bono Group
showed that as of 2010 “at least 61% of all law
schools are now involved in pro bono activity”,
as compared to 46% in 2006 – an increase of 33%.5
Australia, following the example set by Canada,
has also made great strides in fostering student
pro bono involvement.
We should not fall behind these jurisdictions. The
Singapore Institute of Legal Education (“SILE”) has
proposed, and our two law schools have agreed,
to establish a mandatory pro bono programme
for LL.B. students from the academic year 2013.
A dry run of the programme will be carried out
this year. SILE and the SAL will provide funding
to start and sustain this project for three years.
For foreign qualified students, they will also have
to complete pro bono modules either in Part A
or Part B of their qualifying exams. I should add
that Singapore Management University (“SMU”)
J.D. students are required to perform 50 hours
of community service attachment at a Voluntary
Welfare Organisation or an organisation involved in
pro bono and legal aid work.
Clients’ monies in conveyancing matters
In August 2011, the Ministry of Law established a
statutory scheme to prohibit conveyancers from
holding conveyancing monies in clients’ accounts.
Clients have been given three choices as to how
to safeguard their funds, at different costs – (a)
the setting up of conveyancing accounts with
prescribed banks and for payment out from these
accounts to be signed by the lawyers of both parties,
(b) the payment of monies to the SAL to hold as
stakeholders, and (c) the payment of monies to a
special escrow account. It is rather unfortunate that
the scheme requires the public to incur additional
fees. Conveyancers can earn the goodwill of the
public by absorbing these fees. Otherwise, the
public will be seen to be paying such fees in order
to protect the reputation of the Bar. Since this
scheme was introduced, there has been, to my
knowledge, no reported case of lawyers stealing
conveyancing monies. However, until experience
shows that the system is watertight, the Law Society
must remain active and vigilant in conducting
surprise checks on all law firms. After all, law firms
hold clients’ funds from other sources as well. It is
my hope that next year, we can celebrate 2012 as
the first misappropriation-free year in the (recent)
annals of conveyancing. The lesson to be learnt
from this statutory scheme is that when it comes
to safeguarding clients’ monies, the Law Society
must act in the public interest, without favour to or
in fear of its members.
Greater diversity in quality legal representation
This year will see the revival of the Singapore
Circuit – not the Singapore Grand Prix – but
Speech of the President of the Law Society at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012, Singapore Law Gazette, January 2012, http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/president_message/
President_Message_for_Jan_2012.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2012) at p4.
2
06
3
American Bar Association, http://apps.americanbar.org/legalservices/probono/lawschools/introduction.html (accessed on 13 January 2012).
4
American Bar Association, http://apps.americanbar.org/legalservices/probono/lawschools/pb_programs_chart.html (accessed on 13 January 2012).
5
LawWorks, LawWorks Student Pro Bono Report 2011 http://www.lawforlife.org.uk/data/files/lawworks-student-pro-bono-report-2011-347.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2012) at p4.
Message from the Chief Justice
something older which was sidelined by the need
to grow our own pool of expert advocates. We
now have a sizeable pool of Senior Counsel who
provide advisory, arbitral and litigation services to
offshore and onshore clients. However, experience
has shown that their services may not be available
to the general public in times of need. We have
a very large financial and business sector in terms
of contributions to our GDP – it grew from 24.4%
out of a nominal GDP of $158.1 billion in 2002
to 25.9% out of a nominal GDP of $303.7 billion
in 2010. But, the legal services provided to these
sectors are dominated by a small number of large
law firms. The result is that the best litigation
counsel are usually conflicted out of advising or
acting for claimants against big business as they
are mainly concentrated in the large firms. So
we need a greater diversity of expert counsel to
advise, negotiate and pursue legitimate claims in
court. This is not a new problem. The Ministry of
Law has consulted the Law Society and the Senior
Counsel Forum on the best way forward. We can
expect amending legislation to be enacted this
year. The Bar can rest assured that this will not be
a free for all. The courts will admit ad hoc expert
counsel on the basis of need, and not simply
because a litigant can afford to pay. We do not
want to disadvantage litigants who cannot afford
equivalent representation, nor do we want to
impede the nurturing of our own Senior Counsel.
So, ad hoc admission will be on a case-by-case
basis, with the court doing a judicious balancing of
competing interests in each case.
Mandatory Continuing Professional
Development
As the Attorney-General has mentioned, this
year will also see the introduction of mandatory
continuing professional development (“CPD”) to
assist our lawyers in updating their legal knowledge
in both the traditional and emerging areas of
practice.6 SILE will implement CPD in phases,
starting with younger lawyers who have less than five
years of practice. The success of this scheme lies very
much in the attitudes of those who have to take the
courses. But the Bar is fully aware that the profession
will become even more competitive in the future
as the Asian economies continue their anticipated
growth. CPD will not necessarily make lawyers more
competitive, but at least it will make them aware of
the latest developments in the law and, hopefully,
raise the quality of law practice generally.
Plea bargaining
You have just heard from the Attorney-General
that he has had extensive consultations with
stakeholders on plea bargaining, which he has
referred to, euphemistically, as “consensual
negotiated outcomes in criminal proceedings”.7
The Criminal Bar has an important role in
obtaining the best outcome for their clients, and
the Prosecution has to ensure that the public
interest is not prejudiced by too ready an attitude
to dispose of cases quickly. The courts are certainly
in favour of plea bargaining in order to reduce
wastage of resources all round, but the disposal
of prosecutions by this means must satisfy the
requirement of public interest.
Relationship between the Bench, Bar and
the Attorney-General’s Chambers
The working relationship between the Bench, Bar
and the Attorney-General’s Chambers has been
excellent in the past few years. I trust it will continue.
I am happy to note that the Bar and Prosecution
have, on their own initiative, started collaborative
projects such as (i) a Joint Code of Practice and (ii)
a Pamphlet of Rights, which provides information
about the rights of accused persons and victims in
a neutral manner. This is a positive development for
our criminal justice system. At the inaugural Criminal
Law Conference last year, the Vice-President of
the Law Society, Mr Lok Vi Ming, has expressed
the hope that our criminal justice system would
6
Speech of the Attorney-General at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012, http://www.agc.gov.sg/documents/AGC_Press_Release_06-Jan-12.pdf> (accessed on 13
January 2012) at para 19.
7
Speech of the Attorney-General at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012, http://www.agc.gov.sg/documents/AGC_Press_Release_06-Jan-12.pdf> (accessed on 13
January 2012) at para 5.
07
“evolve [into] the most just, compassionate and
accessible criminal justice landscape possible”.8
We share this vision, but always bearing in mind
these goals must be consonant with the greater
public interest in maintaining law and order. This
collaborative spirit will help to facilitate the smooth
operation of the mutual discovery scheme for
cases under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010.
Implementation of eLitigation
This year we shall be able to implement a stateof-the-art integrated electronic litigation system,
or eLitigation, as the successor to the Electronic
Filing System (“EFS”). The EFS has projected our
courts as a global leader in harnessing the power
of information technology in our litigation process.
But today every developed legal jurisdiction has
some form of electronic system, some with multiple
capabilities. So, we need to move ahead. Not
unexpectedly, we encountered many problems
of a managerial and technical nature which the
project group believes it has successfully overcome.
eLitigation will be more efficient and user-friendly
to consumers, and should provide the litigation Bar
with more features, but without substantial increases
in court fees. As no new technological system is
bug-free, I seek the indulgence of the Bar and court
users to be patient and work through any initial
teething problems. Once the system is stabilised, I
am confident that there will be exponential gains in
productivity all round.
State of Legal Services in Singapore
Before I close today’s proceedings, I would like to
say a few words to complement what the AttorneyGeneral has said on Singapore as a legal services
hub. We have been able to establish ourselves
as a regional hub for international legal services
because of sound policies supported by a strong
legal community. The most recent example of
how sound policy can enlarge our legal services
footprint is the impressive growth of international
8
08
arbitration in Singapore. As a legal services hub,
we are not in the same league as London or New
York, but we will continue to grow as we have good
governance, an efficient and responsive legal
system, adequate legal and judicial services and
the Rule of Law – all the prerequisites for growth
in the most dynamic economic region in the world.
As for the Rule of Law, the SAL has just posted on
its website a notice that it, together with our two
law schools, will hold a symposium on the Rule of
Law on 14 -15 February 2012. The Rule of Law is
not merely a powerful idea – it is the bedrock and
foundation of any modern and civilised society.
There will be prominent speakers on various
aspects of the subject and you are invited to sign
up for the symposium and engage them and
other scholars during the panel discussions. This
promises to be a lively event.
Appointment of Senior Counsel
This year, the selection panel has appointed three
Senior Counsel. They are (1) Mr Kannan Ramesh,
(2) Mr Aedit Abdullah and (3) Professor Yeo Tiong
Min, who will be our first honoris causa appointee.
I congratulate them on their appointments.
Conclusion
This brings today’s proceedings to a close. On
behalf of the Judiciary, let me thank you for your
presence, and let us leave here with mutual wishes,
and hopes, that 2012 will be an even better year
than 2011 for the legal community.
Chan Sek Keong
Chief Justice,
Supreme Court of Singapore
Welcome remarks by the Vice-President of the Law Society, Mr Lok Vi Ming SC, at the Criminal Law Conference, October 2011.
FOREWORD BY
THE REGISTRAR
FOREWORD BY
THE REGISTRAR
T
his has been an eventful and rewarding
year for the Supreme Court. Under the
leadership of the Chief Justice and
with the unwavering support of the
Bench and our staff, we kept our commitment
to provide timely and quality justice. We
maintained all our service timelines, exceeded
our demanding Key Performance Indicator for
writ actions and achieved a consistently high
clearance rate this year.
In last year’s Foreword, I wrote about the
Supreme Court’s Workplan 2010-2012, with
the theme of “Achieving Creative Excellence”,
or “ACE it” (for the first year) and “ACE-it-2-
10
gether” (for the second year). The four thrusts,
or agreed areas of emphasis, under Workplan
2010-2012 are Customised Training, Cross
Collaboration, Knowledge Management and
Paradigm Shift. These thrusts framed our
targeted achievements, and it was gratifying
to witness the transformation of creative
ideas into reality and the realisation of our
common vision. For example, the Training and
Professional Development Committee was
set up to institutionalise Customised Training
for judicial officers of the Supreme Court,
including a systematic induction programme,
an international attachment programme and
a mentorship programme with our Judges.
We have also extended the international
attachment programme to members of our
staff, with the objectives of improving their
technical skills and knowledge, exposing them
to best practices and inspiring them to achieve
world-class excellence. Further, we have
incorporated e-learning under our Customised
Training thrust, complemented by a Learning
Management System, to facilitate additional
learning online and on demand.
These attachment programmes also formed a
part of our Cross Collaboration thrust, which
included several notable events. One was the
inaugural Joint Judicial Conference between
Malaysia and Singapore, which was held in
Malaysia and attended by Judges and judicial
officers from both Judiciaries. Another was the
Foreword by the Registrar
International Conference on Electronic Litigation,
organised by the Singapore Academy of Law
with strong support provided by the Supreme
Court, the legal community and other partners.
The conference drew close to 400 participants
from more than 35 jurisdictions, and featured
thought leaders from Singapore and other
countries. Ideas, best practices and potential
pitfalls relating to the use of technology
in litigation were shared freely along with
possible solutions in this largely uncharted
territory. These conferences exemplified our
efforts at achieving Cross Collaboration with
our domestic and international partners and
promoting inter-organisational Knowledge
Management. In addition, we continue to
welcome visitors from other jurisdictions and
to share our practices and experiences with
them. This year, our international programme
hosted some 127 study trips from more than
69 countries to the Supreme Court. As an
extension of our Cross Collaboration thrust,
we are developing further the idea of “Bridge
Building” between different directorates and
project groups with inter-dependent functions
within the organisation. This will be one of the
focus areas at our next workplan.
The Supreme Court’s integral mission in the
administration of justice is to uphold the rule of
law in Singapore. One aspect of the rule of law
requires the ready availability of comprehensive
and accurate information about the key
institutions in Singapore, like the Supreme
Court. An initiative in this direction has been
the conceptualisation and development of a
technology-enabled learning space called the
“Learning Court”, to showcase the workings of
the Supreme Court and to educate the public
about our work and what it means to be a “Living
Courthouse”. We look forward to launching
the Learning Court in 2012. Undoubtedly,
the Learning Court will enhance and boost
our Schools Engagement Programme, which
received nearly 8,000 students from various
schools and universities this year.
We have also ensured that our laws and practices
remain relevant and accessible. We are finalising
our root and branch review of the discovery
regime for civil cases, after consultation with
the Bar and the public. This exercise is timely
as it allows us to evaluate our existing practices
and to examine prospective issues that may
arise in the face of technological and other
advancements. We have also reviewed our
Rules of Court to simplify procedures and
save costs. One noteworthy amendment was
to Order 53 of the Rules of Court to permit
the grant of additional declaratory relief or
other remedies in judicial review proceedings,
without the need to commence a separate
action. Other areas that were reviewed this
year include the practice of concurrent expert
evidence and the system of taxation and costs.
We have also used technology to optimise our
11
hearings by introducing “paper-less” hearings
before the Court of Appeal.
On the “heartware” side, we have already
customised the concept of Customer Service
to suit the unique position of the Supreme
Court. The principles that we subscribe to are
encapsulated in our Customer Service Creed.
Following the discussions at the second
Customer Service Conference held this year,
we have set up a Customer Service Taskforce
to reinforce and oversee our efforts in this
direction.
I would like to take this opportunity to
acknowledge the efforts of our partners, who
are instrumental in enabling us to improve
the administration of justice. This year, we
collaborated with the Criminal Bar and the
Senior Counsel Forum to update the longstanding Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital
Offences (“LASCO”) by revising the honorarium
rates, setting up a LASCO Selection Panel
and extending litigation support schemes
administered by the Law Society to LASCO
lawyers. In addition, we worked closely together
with other agencies and stakeholders on
12
operational matters and special projects. The
working relationships within this ecosystem are
probably at their strongest, as we appreciate
that we are greater than the sum of our parts,
united by a common aspiration to develop our
legal system into one that is second to none.
The year draws to a close as we put the
finishing touches to Workplan 2010-2012. True
to its theme, this has been a journey of creative
excellence. Looking forward, we are confident
of meeting the new year and its challenges, and
achieving excellence in the administration of
justice in Singapore.
Foo Chee Hock
Registrar,
Supreme Court of Singapore
CONSTITUTION AND
JURISDICTION
CONSTITUTION
AND
JURISDICTION
The Judiciary is one of the three branches
of government in Singapore. The other
two branches are the Executive and
the Legislature. Under Article 93 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore,
judicial power in Singapore is vested in the
Supreme Court and in such subordinate courts
as may be provided for by any written law for
the time being in force. The Chief Justice is
the head of the Judiciary.
Structure of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court consists of the Court of
Appeal and the High Court, and hears both
civil and criminal matters. The Supreme
Court Bench consists of the Chief Justice,
the Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial
Commissioners. The Supreme Court Registry
is headed by the Registrar and he is assisted
by the Deputy Registrar, Senior Assistant
Registrars and Assistant Registrars. Justices’
Law Clerks, who work directly under the charge
of the Chief Justice, assist the Judges of
Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners
by carrying out research on the law.
Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal hears appeals against the
decisions of High Court Judges in both civil
14
and criminal matters. It became Singapore’s
final appellate court on 8 April 1994, when
appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council were abolished.
The Chief Justice sits in the Court of Appeal
together with the Judges of Appeal. A Judge
of the High Court may, on the request of the
Chief Justice, sit in the Court of Appeal. The
Court of Appeal is presided over by the Chief
Justice, and in his absence, a Judge of Appeal
or a Judge of the High Court.
The Court of Appeal is usually made up of
three Judges. However, certain appeals, such
as those against interlocutory orders, may be
heard by only two Judges.
Constitution and Jurisdiction
High Court
The High Court consists of the Chief Justice
and the Judges of the High Court. A Judge
of Appeal may also sit in the High Court
as a Judge. Proceedings in the High Court
are heard before a single Judge, unless
otherwise provided by any written law. The
High Court may also appoint one or more
persons with expertise in the subject matter
of the proceedings to assist the court.
The High Court hears both civil and criminal
cases as a court of first instance. The High
Court also hears appeals from the decisions
of District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts in
civil and criminal cases, and decides points
of law reserved in special cases submitted
by a District Court or a Magistrates’ Court.
In addition, the High Court has general
supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction
over all subordinate courts in any civil or
criminal matter.
The High Court has jurisdiction to hear
and try any action where the defendant is
served with a writ or originating summons
in Singapore, or outside Singapore in the
circumstances authorised by the Rules of
Court, or where the defendant submits to
the jurisdiction of the High Court. Generally,
except in probate matters, a civil case must
be commenced in the High Court if the value
of the claim exceeds $250,000. Probate
matters are commenced in the High Court
only if the value of the deceased’s estate
exceeds $3 million or if the estate involves
foreign assets. In addition, ancillary matters
in family proceedings involving assets of
$1.5 million or more are heard in the High
Court.
The following matters are also exclusively
heard by the High Court:
• Admiralty matters
• Company winding-up proceedings
15
• Bankruptcy proceedings
• Applications for the admission of
advocates and solicitors
The High Court has jurisdiction to try all
offences committed in Singapore and
may also try offences committed outside
Singapore in certain circumstances. In
criminal cases, the High Court generally
tries cases where the offences are
punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment or
more per charge, and offences carrying the
capital punishment.
The Supreme Court Registry
The registrars perform both judicial and
administrative functions. They preside over
hearings of various pre-trial and post-trial
matters in chambers. These include:
• Bankruptcy applications
• Interlocutory applications such as those for discovery of documents, striking out of pleadings and summary judgment
• Assessment of damages
• Taxation of costs
They also conduct pre-trial conferences
and take charge of case management,
16
including case scheduling. In their
concurrent appointments as Magistrates
or District Judges, they conduct Committal
Hearings in criminal cases. Some registrars
also hold appointments on tribunals and
committees.
In addition, the registrars supervise the
day-to-day operations of the Registry and
take charge of various Registry portfolios
such as personnel, finance, corporate
communications and security. They also
steer and drive projects involving case
management, organisational excellence,
information technology and knowledge
management in the Judiciary.
SIGNIFICANT
EVENTS
SIGNIFICANT
EVENTS
Members of the Supreme Court Bench together with the Registrar and Senior Assistant Registrars at the
Opening of the Legal Year 2011 ceremony
Opening of the Legal Year
The Opening of the Legal Year ceremony was
held on 7 January 2011 at the Supreme Court
Auditorium. During the ceremony, the AttorneyGeneral and the President of the Law Society of
Singapore renewed their pledges of support, on
behalf of the Attorney-General’s Chambers and
the Bar respectively, to uphold the rule of law and
facilitate the administration of justice.
In his inaugural address at the ceremony, the
Honourable Attorney-General Sundaresh Menon
SC spoke about the new Criminal Procedure Code
18
(CPC 2010) which came into effect on 2 January 2011.
The Attorney-General highlighted that prosecutors
and legislative draftsmen from the AttorneyGeneral’s Chambers were heavily involved in the
drafting of the CPC 2010 and that the CPC 2010
was the product of much effort on the part of the
Ministry of Law and its partner agencies.
The Attorney-General also highlighted the
formation of the Economic Crimes and Governance
Division, a third division in the Crime Cluster of the
Attorney-General’s Chambers, which focuses on the
prosecution of financial crimes and regulatory
offences. To develop a closer collaborative relationship
Significant Events
between the Attorney-General’s Chambers and
the Criminal Bar, he suggested several measures
that should be adopted, such as a joint code of
practice for the conduct of criminal cases, and more
opportunities for young practitioners of criminal law
to address issues of concern that may arise in the
course of their work.
In his address, the President of the Law Society, Mr
Wong Meng Meng SC, spoke about the Ministry of
Law’s plan to stop the practice of lawyers holding
their clients’ monies in conveyancing transactions.
He noted that 159 law firms have signed on to
participate in the pilot trial to place clients’ monies
in special escrow accounts either with the Singapore
Academy of Law or selected banks.
On the changes and opportunities for the year
ahead, Mr Wong SC noted how the Law Society’s
Secretariat and Council can strive to improve their
work methods and systems through better financial
planning and the possibility of exporting the Law
New Senior Counsel appointed in 2011 – Mr Roderick Edward
Martin and Mr Chan Leng Sun
The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal and Judges at the
Opening of the Legal Year
Society’s training programmes and expertise to
other jurisdictions in the region. He also highlighted
the Law Society’s collaborative work with the
Singapore Academy of Law and the Ministry of Law,
and reaffirmed the Law Society’s commitment to
the continuous training and education of lawyers.
In his response, The Honourable the Chief Justice
Chan Sek Keong congratulated the AttorneyGeneral and the President of the Law Society
on their new appointments. The Chief Justice
also highlighted the merits of the Criminal Case
Disclosure Procedure that was introduced in the CPC
2010. The new procedure levels the playing field for
the prosecution and the defence by reducing the
element of surprise at trial. In addition, the Chief
Justice lauded the Criminal Bar for its role and efforts
in working with the judiciary and the prosecution in
ensuring that defendants are accorded a fair trial.
The Chief Justice also spoke about conveyancing
monies and small law firms. He emphasised the
importance of keeping clients’ monies secure,
19
time the Mass Call was held at the University
Cultural Centre at the National University of
Singapore. The newly-admitted advocates and
solicitors were favoured with two addresses, one
by The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek
Keong and another by one of the Vice-Presidents
of the Law Society of Singapore, Mr Lok Vi
Ming SC.
Lunch reception after the Opening of the Legal
Year ceremony
and noted that small law firms have a useful role in
providing niche legal services to the man in the street.
The Chief Justice praised the Law Society and the
Attorney-General’s Chambers for the professional
development programmes for their officers, and
said that the Supreme Court had put in place an
intensive customised training programme for
Assistant Registrars and Justices’ Law Clerks to
enhance their professional skills and expertise.
The Chief Justice also pledged the Supreme
Court’s support to the Law Society with regard
to the latter’s interest in expanding regional and
international connections.
In his address, Mr Lok SC compared the declaration
made by the newly-admitted advocates and
solicitors to the marriage vow and parenthood. He
concluded that “the vow you take today ... binds
you to a time honoured profession and to the high
ideal of serving the cause of justice as advocates
and solicitors of this Honourable Court. It bids you
to serve and protect ... in the way only members
of this profession know how; in the only way the
members of this profession are entitled to.”
The Chief Justice, in agreeing with the wise
counsel of Mr Lok SC, reminded the newlyadmitted advocates and solicitors that “a rulebased society like Singapore will always require
legal services for social justice and economic
progress”. He recommended that the new
In closing, the Chief Justice announced the
appointment of two new Senior Counsel, and
congratulated them on their appointments.
Mass Call
A total of 257 law graduates were called to the
Bar on 27 August 2011, the same day that the
Presidential Elections was held. This was the first
20
Guests and newly-admitted advocates and solicitors
at the post-event reception at Mass Call
Significant Events
Newly-admitted advocates and solicitors at Mass Call
lawyers read materials such as the Law Society of
Singapore’s July 2011 issue of the Law Gazette,
and the Singapore Academy of Law’s publication
entitled “A Civil Practice – Good Counsel for
Learned Friends”, to help them on the road in
which they were about to take.
The Chief Justice also said that the education
and training that lawyers receive will equip them
to take on leadership roles in Singapore’s nation
building. The newly-admitted advocates and
solicitors will be in a position to influence the
future of Singapore in the next 20 years.
International Conference on
Electronic Litigation
The inaugural International Conference on
Electronic Litigation was held on 11 and 12 August
2011 at the Marina Mandarin Hotel. Organised by
the Singapore Academy of Law, the Conference
was supported by the Supreme Court, with the
Honourable Justice Lee Seiu Kin chairing the
organising committee.
In addition to providing logistical and
administrative support for the Conference,
the Supreme Court also contributed a host of
speakers to the Conference. The Honourable the
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong gave the opening
address, while Justice Lee Seiu Kin addressed
the Conference as the organising chairman. The
Honourable Judge of Appeal V K Rajah, Registrar
Foo Chee Hock and Senior Assistant Registrar
Yeong Zee Kin also spoke at the Conference.
There was also an impressive line-up of
world-renowned speakers such as the Right
Honourable Lord Justice Rupert Jackson, Judge
of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales;
Senior Master Steven Whitaker of the High Court
of England and Wales; Mr Stephen Mason,
renowned author of publications on electronic
litigation; and a number of Senior Counsel. The
Conference attracted close to 400 participants
21
centre. As a clear sign of its success, the
Singapore Academy of Law plans to hold the
Conference once every three years.
Legal Assistance Scheme
for Capital Offences
(LASCO) Tea
The mock electronic trial held at the Supreme Court
during the International Conference on Electronic
Litigation
from more than 35 jurisdictions, with more than
60 members from foreign Judiciaries.
During the Conference, participants gained insights
into various issues facing this rapidly evolving
field, including electronic discovery obligations,
developments in the law on electronic discovery
in various jurisdictions, preservation of evidence,
incorporation of technology in court advocacy, and
the impact of social media on civil litigation. The
Conference culminated in a mock trial and arbitration
session held concurrently at the Supreme Court
and Maxwell Chambers where participants had the
opportunity to experience the latest technology onsite.
The Conference successfully promoted the
Supreme Court of Singapore as one of the key
jurisdictions in electronic litigation, and advanced
Singapore’s positioning as a leading commercial
22
The Supreme Court Registry organised
the LASCO tea to thank members of the
Criminal Bar for their support of LASCO.
Held on 18 November 2011 at the Supreme
Court Viewing Gallery, the tea was well-attended
by members of the Supreme Court Bench,
Supreme Court Registry, and Law Society
of Singapore. Close to 60 members of the
Criminal Bar were also present.
The tea kicked off with a brief address by The
Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong,
who spoke about the LASCO Selection Panel
which oversees the emplacement of lawyers on
LASCO and assignment of counsel to specific
cases.
Following the Chief Justice’s address, the Bench
and the Criminal Bar interacted over refreshments.
It is hoped that such events will foster a deeper
sense of collegiality amongst LASCO counsel
and encourage greater participation in LASCO.
THE SUPREME
COURT BENCH
THE
SUPREME COURT
BENCH
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong
JUDGES OF APPEAL
Justice Chao Hick Tin
Justice Andrew Phang
Boon Leong
Justice V K Rajah
JUDGES
Justice Kan Ting Chiu
Justice Lai Siu Chiu
Justice Judith Prakash
(retired on 27 August 2011)
Justice Tan Lee Meng
Justice Choo Han Teck
Justice Woo Bih Li
Justice Tay Yong Kwang
Justice Andrew Ang
Justice Lee Seiu Kin
Justice Chan Seng Onn
Justice Philip Nalliah
Pillai
Justice Quentin Loh
Sze-On
Justice Steven Chong
Horng Siong
Justice Belinda Ang
Saw Ean
Changes to the Bench
Retirement of the Honourable Justice
Kan Ting Chiu
Justice Kan Ting Chiu, Supreme Court Judge,
retired on 27 August 2011 upon reaching the
age of 65. He contributed a total of 26 years of
distinguished service in various appointments
within the Singapore public service.
Justice Kan Ting Chiu
Throughout his legal career, Justice Kan made
outstanding contributions to the Supreme
Court and the legal profession. Justice Kan
was a Council Member of the Law Society of
Singapore from 1983 to 1984. From 1993 to
2005, he was a member of the Board of Legal
Education, a body which provided for the
training and examination of law graduates
seeking admission to the Singapore Bar.
Since 1999, Justice Kan served as Chairman
of the Singapore Academy of Law’s Legal
Heritage Committee.
To thank him for his services to the Supreme
Court, The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan
Sek Keong hosted a farewell dinner at the
Grand Copthorne Hotel which was attended by
members of the Supreme Court Bench.
The registrars and Justices’ Law Clerks also
held a farewell tea and farewell lunch for
Justice Kan respectively.
26
The Supreme Court Bench
Highlights of Judges’ Events
The Malaysian and Singapore Judiciaries at the Joint Judicial Conference
Joint Judicial Conference hosted by
the Malaysian Judiciary
The Malaysian Judiciary hosted the inaugural
Joint Judicial Conference in Putrajaya,
Malaysia on 19 March 2011. Altogether, 15
members of the Singapore Judiciary, including
The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek
Keong, met up with their counterparts from the
Malaysian Judiciary.
The idea for the Conference was first mooted by
the Honourable Judge of Appeal V K Rajah, to
improve the already close relationship between
the two Judiciaries and to allow the two Judiciaries
to learn from each other. With approval from
the two Chief Justices, the organisation of the
Conference was led by the Honourable Puan
Nallini Pathmanathan and the Honourable Justice
Steven Chong from the Malaysian and Singapore
Judiciaries respectively.
27
Each Judiciary presented two papers at
the Conference. The Malaysian Judiciary
shared its experiences on the setting up
of the New Commercial Court – a highly
successful initiative that the Malaysian
Judiciary implemented to clear its backlog
of cases. The Honourable Judge of Appeal
Chao Hick Tin and the Honourable Justice
Lee Seiu Kin represented the Singapore
Judiciary to discuss significant civil reforms
in Singapore and the Criminal Procedure
Code 2010 respectively.
All participants found the Conference
extremely useful, particularly since many
of the problems faced were not unique
to each jurisdiction. Members of both
Judiciaries also found time to bond
over meals, informal meetings and other
activities.
Dinner hosted by the Forum of
Senior Counsel
The Supreme Court Bench was invited to
a dinner hosted by the Forum of Senior
Counsel on 18 July 2011. 14 members of
the Supreme Court Bench and almost 30
Senior Counsel attended the dinner.
At the dinner, The Honourable the Chief
Justice Chan Sek Keong commended
the Senior Counsel for their pro bono
28
work and their efforts at reaching out
and interacting with the general public.
He commented that it would take time
for the Forum of Senior Counsel to grow
as an institution and become part of the
public’s consciousness. He said that it
was important that the Forum interact
with the media to help the public better
understand its pro bono work.
The Chief Justice also pointed out that the
next decade would be crucial for raising
the standards of the Bar. To earn the
confidence and trust of the public, the best
values, practices and traditions of the Bar
must be protected and strengthened. The
Senior Counsel, by their own behaviour
and conduct, have to imbue young lawyers
under their tutelage with the values and
traditions of the profession.
The Chief Justice stressed that the state of
the Criminal Bar needs to be looked into
seriously. He noted that while the number
of criminal cases rose significantly last year,
the Criminal Bar has not been expanding
in the last decade. To boost the Criminal
Bar, he suggested that every Senior
Counsel take on at least one criminal case
every year. Another possibility was for a
senior criminal lawyer to start a criminal
law chamber.
The Supreme Court Bench
The 14th Conference of Chief
Justices of Asia and the Pacific
The 14th Conference of Chief Justices of
Asia and the Pacific was hosted by the
Supreme Court of Korea in Seoul from
12 to 16 June 2011. The Conference was
attended by Chief Justices and Judges
from 37 different nations across the AsiaPacific region.
The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan
Sek Keong was invited to chair Session
One of the Conference, entitled “The
Application of Technology to the Courts –
Present and Future Developments”, while
the Chief Justice of the Republic of Korea,
the Honourable Lee Yong-Hoon, spoke on
“The Judiciary in the Information Age – The
Present State and The Future Direction”.
the notion of court excellence, such as by
formulating the International Framework
for Court Excellence with partners from
other jurisdictions.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong concluded
his presentation by emphasising that
serving the needs of justice is the first and
foremost goal of the Singapore Judiciary
and that it is for this reason that initiatives
to institutionalise efficiency and excellence
are pursued with vigour.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong was also
invited to deliver a paper on the topic
“Pursuing Efficiency and Achieving Court
Excellence – The Singapore Experience”.
In his speech, he spoke about the
broader concept of court excellence,
which encompassed more than just court
efficiency and case management. It also
included values such as the independence
of the Judiciary, fairness and integrity. He
said the Singapore Judiciary has played
a “first mover” role in trying to establish
29
Judges’ Participation in Local and Overseas Events
Date
Attending Judge(s) Host Country
6 Jan
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Andrew Phang JA
26 – 28 Jan Philip Pillai J
Name of Event
Singapore
Global Forum on Intellectual Property 2011
• Andrew Phang JA was a panel speaker for
the session entitled “View from the Bench –
The Next Ten Years in Intellectual Property”
Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
World Justice Project Asia Pacific Rule of Law
Conference
5 – 9 Feb
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Hyderabad, India Patron Chief Justices’ Meeting and 17th
Commonwealth Law Conference
18 Feb
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Singapore
Subordinate Courts Workplan 2011
• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the keynote
address at the Workplan
24 Feb
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Andrew Phang JA
V K Rajah JA
Philip Pillai J
Quentin Loh J
Singapore
Singapore Academy of Law Conference 2011
Developments in Singapore Law 2006-2010:
Trends and Perspectives
• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the opening
address
• Andrew Phang JA chaired the panel
discussion entitled “Contract Law”
• V K Rajah JA chaired a speakers’ panel on
“Arbitration Law and Practice”
• Quentin Loh J delivered a speech entitled
“Recent Singapore Decisions and Trends in
the Arbitration World”
26 Feb – 6 Tay Yong Kwang J
Mar
Doha, Qatar
Abu Dhabi and
Dubai, United
Arab Emirates
Study Visit to the Middle East (Qatar and the
United Arab Emirates)
3 – 6 Mar
Chao Hick Tin JA
Lee Seiu Kin J
Pattaya, Thailand ASEAN Law Association 33rd Governing Council
Meeting
• Lee Seiu Kin J delivered the opening
address
12 Mar
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Singapore
Ninth United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law / International Insolvency Institute /
World Bank Multinational Judicial Colloquium on
Cross-Border Insolvency
• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the keynote
address on “Cross-Border Insolvency Issues
Affecting Singapore”
18 – 20
Mar
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Chao Hick Tin JA
Andrew Phang JA
V K Rajah JA
Lai Siu Chiu J
Judith Prakash J
Belinda Ang J
Woo Bih Li J
Lee Seiu Kin J
Philip Pillai J
Quentin Loh J
Steven Chong J
Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Joint Judicial Conference
• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered an address
• Chao Hick Tin JA delivered a paper entitled
“Recent Significant Reforms to the Civil
Litigation Process in Singapore”
• Lee Seiu Kin J delivered a paper entitled
“The CPC 2010 – A Watershed in the
Development of Singapore’s Criminal
Justice Framework”
30
The Supreme Court Bench
Date
Attending Judge(s) Host Country
20 – 24
Mar
V K Rajah JA
Steven Chong J
25 Apr
Steven Chong J
27 Apr
V K Rajah JA
29 Apr – 1 CJ Chan Sek Keong
May
5 May
5 – 7 May
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Andrew Phang JA
Philip Pillai J
18 – 22
May
Quentin Loh J
19 May
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Andrew Phang JA
V K Rajah JA
Andrew Ang J
22 – 26
May
31 May
1 Jun
10 – 11
Jun
Name of Event
Sydney, Australia Judicial Seminar on Commercial Litigation
• V K Rajah JA delivered a paper entitled
“Addressing Caseload Issues in the
Aftermath of an Economic Crisis – The
Singapore Experience”
• Steven Chong J delivered a paper entitled
“Arbitration Law – Reflections on Recent
Singapore Developments”
Singapore Management University
Singapore
• Steven Chong J delivered a talk entitled
“Arbitration Law – The Singapore
Experience”
Third Association of Criminal Lawyers Annual
Singapore
Lecture
Annual Bench and Bar Games
Singapore
• CJ Chan Sek Keong led the Singapore
delegation at the Games
Seventh China-ASEAN Prosecutors-General
Singapore
Conference
• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the welcome
address to the conference delegates
Sydney, Australia International Commercial Law, Litigation and
Arbitration Conference
• Andrew Phang JA delivered a paper entitled
“The Impact of International Conventions
and Model Laws on Domestic Commercial
Law – The Singapore Experience”
St. Petersburg International Legal Forum
St. Petersburg,
Russia
• Quentin Loh J delivered a paper entitled
“The Court’s Role as a Guardian of Business –
Enhancing Accessibility to Justice, Efficiency of
Justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution”
Singapore Management University Yong Pung
Singapore
How Professorship of Law Lecture
6th International Judges Conference
V K Rajah JA
Quentin Loh J
Brussels,
Belgium
Singapore
Singapore
Andrew Phang JA
Sabah, Malaysia
Journal of Contract Law Conference –
Commercial Contract Law: Malaysian and
International Perspectives
• Andrew Phang JA delivered a paper entitled
“Recent Developments in Singapore
Contract Law – The Search for Principle”
Law Society Biennale Lecture 2011
Singapore International Arbitration Forum 2011
• Quentin Loh J chaired the discussion on
“Insurance Arbitration – Lessons from the
Financial Crisis”
31
Date
Attending Judge(s) Host Country
12 – 16 Jun CJ Chan Sek Keong
Name of Event
Seoul, Korea
14th Conference of the Chief Justices of Asia and
the Pacific
• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered a paper entitled
“Pursuing Efficiency and Achieving Court
Excellence – The Singapore Experience”
Johannesburg,
South Africa
Access to Justice Conference
• Lee Seiu Kin J delivered two papers entitled
“Ensuring Access to Justice Through Judicial
Education” and “Optimising Technology in
Litigation Process”
20 – 22 Jul Quentin Loh J
Jakarta,
Indonesia
Alternative Dispute Resolution in Singapore – the
Preferred Choice for Indonesian Cross-Border
Businesses
• Quentin Loh J delivered a speech entitled
“Alternative Dispute Resolution in Singapore
– An Option for Indonesian Cross-Border
Businesses”
22 – 24 Jul Philip Pillai J
New Delhi, India
International Seminar on Global Environment
and Disaster Management: Law and Society
• Philip Pillai J delivered a paper entitled
“Singapore Case Study – Management of
SARS”
8 – 10 Jul
Lee Seiu Kin J
29 Jul
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Singapore
Singapore Management University School of Law
Commencement Ceremony 2011
• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the
commencement address at the ceremony
1 Aug
Steven Chong J
Singapore
National University of Singapore’s Faculty of Law
Freshmen Inauguration Ceremony 2011
• Steven Chong J delivered a speech at the
ceremony
4 Aug
V K Rajah JA
Singapore
Herbert Smith – Singapore Management
University Asian Arbitration Lecture
11 – 12
Aug
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Chao Hick Tin JA
V K Rajah JA
Lee Seiu Kin J
Singapore
International Conference on Electronic Litigation
• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the opening
address to the conference delegates
• V K Rajah JA delivered the keynote address
on “The Incorporation of Technology in
Court Advocacy”
• Lee Seiu Kin J delivered the opening speech
as the Conference Chairman
27 Aug
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Singapore
Mass Call for Admission of Advocates and
Solicitors
• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered an address to
the newly-admitted Advocates and Solicitors
Chan Seng Onn J
Sydney, Australia
Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration
(AIJA) Criminal Justice in Australia and New
Zealand – Issues and the Challenges for Judicial
Administration Conference
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Fourth Tun Hussein Onn Lecture
7 – 9 Sep
9 Sep
32
The Supreme Court Bench
Date
Attending Judge(s) Host Country
9 Sep
Andrew Phang JA
Name of Event
Singapore
Launch of Singapore Mediation Charter
• Andrew Phang JA participated as the Guest
of Honour at the launch of the Singapore
Mediation Charter
Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Malaysian Shipping Conference 2011
Singapore
Singapore Institute of Arbitrators Commercial
Arbitration Symposium 2011
• Quentin Loh J co-chaired the session “The
Courts – Role, Support and Enforcement”
with Dr. Michael Pryles (Chairman, Singapore
International Arbitration Centre)
22 – 23 Sep Philip Pillai J
Vladivostok,
Russia
International Forum of the Asia-Pacific Countries
• Philip Pillai J delivered a paper entitled
“Singapore Contract Law – The English
Common Law Legacy in Asia’s Financial and
Business Centre”
25 – 28 Sep Chao Hick Tin JA
Lee Seiu Kin J
Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
5th China-ASEAN Forum
14 – 15 Sep Judith Prakash J
Steven Chong J
20 Sep
Quentin Loh J
28 Sep
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Chao Hick Tin JA
Andrew Phang JA
V K Rajah JA
Lai Siu Chiu J
Judith Prakash J
Tan Lee Meng J
Belinda Ang J
Woo Bih Li J
Tay Yong Kwang J
Lee Seiu Kin J
Chan Seng Onn J
Philip Pillai J
Quentin Loh J
Steven Chong J
Singapore
14th Singapore Academy of Law Annual Lecture
• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the welcome
address
1 Oct
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Singapore
The Law Awareness Project 2011 – Launch of “Law
Cares” – A Law Society Initiative for the Elderly
• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the opening
address
7 Oct
CJ Chan Sek Keong
Singapore
Code of Practice Seminar on the Mental Capacity
Act: Rethinking Caregiving
• CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the keynote
address
13 Oct
CJ Chan Sek Keong
V K Rajah JA
Choo Han Teck J
Steven Chong J
Singapore
Criminal Law Conference 2011
• V K Rajah JA chaired the panel discussion
entitled “Sentencing Options – What Lies
Beyond Jails and Fines?”
• Choo Han Teck J chaired a panel discussion
entitled “Criminal Litigation – Advocacy and
Appeals”
• Steven Chong J chaired a panel discussion
entitled “Criminal Law and Practice – A New
Opportunity”
Melbourne,
Australia
Engaging the Asian Economies – Law & Practice
2011
• Steven Chong J delivered a paper entitled
“Investing Time in Asia – Strategies for
Fruitful Co-operation”
19 – 22 Oct Steven Chong J
33
Date
Attending Judge(s) Host Country
20 Oct
Lee Seiu Kin J
Singapore
First National Conference on Construction
Adjudication
• Lee Seiu Kin J delivered the keynote address
20 – 25
Oct
CJ Chan Sek Keong
V K Rajah JA
London, UK
Careers@Singapore: Legal Services
• CJ Chan Sek Keong and V K Rajah JA met
with Singapore law students in the United
Kingdom
• V K Rajah JA presented a paper entitled “An
Overview of the Legal Landscape in Singapore
– Past, Present, Future”
31 Oct
V K Rajah JA
Singapore
Singapore Academy of Law Panel Discussion:
What kind of Lawyer are you? Differentiating
yourself from the pack!
• V K Rajah JA chaired the panel discussion
1 Nov
Quentin Loh J
Singapore
Arbitration Dialogue organised by the Ministry
of Law
• Quentin Loh J delivered a speech entitled
“The Role of Courts Within the Arbitration
Eco-system”
Philip Pillai J
Seoul, Korea
OECD-Korea Policy Centre, Competition
Programme, Workshop for Judges in the Asian
Region on Competition Law
10 Nov
Steven Chong J
Singapore
Attorney-General’s Chambers’ talk for Legal
Service Officers and Assistant Public Prosecutors
• Steven Chong J spoke on “The Role and
Duties of a Prosecutor – The Lawyer Who
Never “Loses” a Case, Whether Conviction
or Acquittal”
18 Nov
Andrew Phang JA
Singapore
Court Volunteers’ Appreciation Dinner 2011
• Andrew Phang JA delivered an address
24 – 26
Nov
Quentin Loh J
Montreal,
Canada
UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration
• Quentin Loh J delivered a paper entitled
“The Interpretive Significance of the
International Normative Context in
Singapore’s International Arbitration Law”
Philip Pillai J
Jakarta,
Indonesia
Roundtable for ASEAN Chief Justices and
Senior Judiciary on Environmental Law and
Enforcement
• Philip Pillai J delivered a paper on
“Singapore: The Singapore Clean Green
City Matrix: The Singapore dynamic
of governance, social policy, law and
enforcement”
2 - 4 Nov
6 – 7 Dec
34
Name of Event
INTERNATIONAL
PROFILE
INTERNATIONAL
PROFILE
Rankings in International
Surveys
In 2011, Singapore continued to do well in
international surveys conducted by the International
Institute for Management Development (IMD) and
the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC).
In the 2011 IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook,
Singapore once again topped the rankings for the
category “Legal and Regulatory Framework”. Hong
Kong and Australia were ranked second and third
respectively. Singapore also came in 12th out of 59
countries under the category of “Justice”, which
looks at whether justice is fairly administered in a
country.
In the latest PERC report published in 2011,
Singapore ranked second out of the 12 Asian
countries that were surveyed, behind Hong Kong
but ahead of Japan. This ranking was based on a
survey of expatriates’ perceptions of different judicial
systems in Asia.
Overseas
Conferences,
Attachments and Speaking
Engagements
Visit to the Hong Kong Courts
To strengthen the relationship with the Hong Kong
Judiciary, a delegation led by Registrar Foo Chee
36
Hock paid an official visit to the Hong Kong Courts
from 14 to 17 February 2011.
During the visit, the delegates engaged in
dialogues with their Hong Kong counterparts
on experiences in the administration of justice.
Apart from uncovering the similarities and
differences in judicial administration between the
two jurisdictions, the Singapore delegation also
delivered a presentation on the Electronic Filing
System. The visit provided a good opportunity for
fruitful interaction between the delegation and the
Hong Kong Judiciary.
Learning Visit to Qatar and UAE
A delegation led by the Honourable Justice Tay
Yong Kwang visited the Qatari and the United
Arab Emirates (“UAE”) Courts from 26 February to
6 March 2011.
In Doha, the delegation met with the Chief Justice
of Qatar, His Excellency Masood bin Al-Ameri.
The delegation learnt much about the Qatari
legal system through a series of briefings as well
as a tour of the courts. The delegation then gave
a presentation on Singapore’s case management
processes and the use of information technology
in the Singapore courts.
The delegation also travelled to the UAE and visited
the Courts of Abu Dhabi and Dubai. In Abu Dhabi,
they met with the Minister of Justice Dr Hadef
International Profile
bin Jua’an Al Dhaheri, and the President and
Chief Justice of the Federal Supreme Court, the
Honourable Dr Abdel Wahab Abdool. There
was a vibrant exchange of ideas at a roundtable
discussion and a dinner presentation. In Dubai,
the delegation met with the Director General
of the Dubai courts, His Excellency Dr Ahmed
Saeed bin Hezeem Al Suwaidi, who gave them
insights on the various innovations undertaken
by the Dubai courts. The delegation also
visited the Dubai International Financial Centre
(“DIFC”) courts where His Excellency Justice
Ali Al Madhani, His Excellency Justice Omar Al
Muhairi, and the Registrar of DIFC, Mark Beer,
shared about the legal regime of the DIFC with
the group.
“Our learning visit to Qatar and the UAE
was an enjoyable and fruitful one. We were
introduced to the legal systems of Qatar
and the UAE, and there was an interesting
exchange of ideas on a variety of topics like the
use of IT in the courts and case management.
On a personal note, we must thank our hosts
for their wonderful hospitality! We will fondly
remember the Arabian coffee, dates and the
visits to the Pearl, Katara and Burj Khalifa.”
- AR Lionel Leo
Attachment to Hong Kong Judiciary
Assistant Registrars Eunice Chua and Paul Chan
were attached to the Hong Kong Judiciary
in June 2011. They spent two days each with
the Hong Kong District Court and High Court,
and one day at the Hong Kong Court of Final
Appeal. They sat in for case management
hearings, through which they gained deeper
understanding of how the Hong Kong Courts
managed and prepared cases for trials, as well as
observed how the Hong Kong Masters handled
difficult litigants. They also had the opportunity
to sit in for bankruptcy hearings and legal aid
appeal hearings.
Assistant Registrars Eunice Chua and Paul Chan
also had discussions with many Judges and
judicial officers including the Honourable Chief
Justice Geoffrey Ma, Registrar Simon Kwang of
the Court of Final Appeal, Registrar Lung Kimwan of the High Court, and Registrar Clement
Lee of the District Court.
Through these interaction opportunities, they
learnt about the challenges that the Hong Kong
Judiciary face, for example, dealing with the
rising costs of litigation as well as unmeritorious
applications for leave to appeal to the Court of
Final Appeal, and the strategies adopted to deal
with those challenges. They also shared with the
Hong Kong Judiciary Singapore’s experience
with its Electronic Filing System as well as other
technological initiatives employed to facilitate
the litigation process. Finally, they had the
opportunity to visit the Mediation Information
37
“Observing how the Hong Kong Judiciary
handled similar matters, for example
bankruptcy, case management, in different
ways gave me a fresh insight into the rules of
civil procedure in Singapore and provoked me
to think about how their purposes can be best
achieved.”
“We realised from this experience how much
the Supreme Court of Singapore achieved
by implementing an electronic process. The
various judicial officers from the Queen’s
Bench Division we met with expressed
their hope for something similar to be
implemented there. We appreciate being
given the opportunity to learn from the
Queen’s Counsel who taught or took classes
with us at the Civil Law Seminar.”
- AR Eunice Chua
- AR Jordan Tan and AR Sngeeta Devi
The
attachment
was
invaluable
in
demonstrating how a modern, cosmopolitan
state can forge a legal identity uniquely suited
to the needs of its people.”
Attachment to the Royal Courts of
Justice in the United Kingdom
Office and the Centre for Litigants located in the
Hong Kong High Court.
- AR Paul Chan
Civil Law Seminar organised by the Judicial
College in the United Kingdom
Assistant Registrars Jordan Tan and Sngeeta Devi
attended a three-day Civil Law Seminar organised
by the Judicial College in the United Kingdom (UK)
in June 2011. The Civil Law Seminar was attended
by a significant number of judges in the UK. The two
Assistant Registrars had the invaluable opportunity
to interact with these judges and learn from their
experiences. Participants of the Civil Law Seminar
were able to choose from a variety of modules.
The Assistant Registrars attended classes on topics
such as Evidence in the Civil Court and Damages.
These interactive classes gave them the opportunity
to compare and contrast the law in the UK with that
of Singapore.
38
Assistant Registrars Jordan Tan and Sngeeta
Devi, together with the Deputy Director
of the Legal Directorate, Ms Jasmine Ong,
were attached to the Queen’s Bench Division
of the Royal Courts of Justice in the United
Kingdom (UK) for two weeks, from end June until
early July 2011. During their attachment, the
Assistant Registrars sat in with several Queen’s
Bench Masters, including Senior Master Steven
Whitaker, for chamber hearings, to observe how
interlocutory applications are conducted. Ms
Jasmine Ong observed the processes of the
various registries at the court. The delegation
also visited the Supreme Court, the Central
London Civil Justice Centre and the Willesden
County Court during their attachment.
For two weeks in November, a similar attachment
programme to the Queen’s Bench Division
of the Royal Courts of Justice in the UK was
arranged for Assistant Registrars Tan Sze Yao
International Profile
and Elaine Chew, and Director of the Legal
Directorate, Ms Carol Liew. In addition, the
delegation visited the LexisNexis Academy and
the recently completed Rolls Building Court
Complex (Rolls Building) which brings under
one roof the whole of the English High Court’s
judicial specialist expertise in London for the
determination of high value construction,
financial, business and property disputes.
The Rolls Building was officially opened on
7 December 2011.
Fourth Tun Hussein Onn Lecture and
Advocacy Training Course
Together with The Honourable the Chief Justice
Chan Sek Keong, Assistant Registrars Ang Feng
Qian and Shaun Leong Li Shiong represented
the Supreme Court at the Fourth Tun Hussein
Onn Lecture held at the Shangri-La Hotel in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 9 September 2011.
The event was graced by the Right Honourable
Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki
Bin Tun Azmi. The Right Honourable Lord
Robert Walker of Gestingthorpe, Justice of
the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,
delivered an eminently insightful speech on
“National Security and the Rule of Law – A
Lesson from the Past”.
Lincoln’s Inn Alumni Association of Malaysia in
association with London’s Honourable Society
of Lincoln’s Inn, the Senior Tutor of the Course
was Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, and the
Course Director was Judge Alan Saggerson.
Attachment
Construction
Kingdom
to
Technology
and
Court in the United
Senior Assistant Registrar Teh Hwee Hwee and
Assistant Registrar Terence Tan were attached
to the Technology and Construction Court (TCC)
in London for a week in November 2011. During
their attachment, they sat in with Mr Justice Vivian
Ramsey and several other TCC Judges during
open court and chamber hearings to observe
how TCC cases are managed.
They also sat in with Lord Justice Bernard Anthony
Rix, Lord Justice Stephen Miles Tomlinson and Sir
George Mark Waller for a TCC appeal in the Court
of Appeal (Queen’s Bench Division). In addition,
they also visited the UK Supreme Court, Royal
Courts of Justice and the Central Criminal Court
(Old Bailey). Finally, they also had the opportunity
to tour and learn about the purpose-built facilities
of the newly constructed Rolls Building.
The two Assistant Registrars also participated
in the Advocacy Training Course held at the
Kuala Lumpur High Court Complex between
10 and 12 September 2011, and were awarded
Certificates of Completion. Organised by the
39
Visits by Distinguished Guests
Highlighted below are some of the distinguished guests
who visited the Supreme Court in 2011
18 Jan
The Honourable Mr Sobchok Sukharomna, President of the Supreme Court of Thailand
14 Mar
The Honourable Mr Anthony Smellie, Chief Justice of the Cayman Islands
16 Mar
12 Apr
The Honourable Prof. Dr Heinz Vallender, Chief Justice of the Cologne Bankruptcy Court,
Germany
Mr David Ware, CEO of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia
21 Apr
Her Excellency Aurelia Frick, Foreign Minister of Liechtenstein
25 Apr
His Excellency Rauff Hakeem, Minister of Justice of Sri Lanka
20 Jul
The Honourable Mr Anand Ramlogan, Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago
28 Sep
31 Oct
The Honourable Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki Bin Tun Azmi, Former Chief Justice of the Federal
Court of Malaysia
Mr Jagdish Sharan Verma, Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India
11 Nov
The Honourable Md Muzammel Hossain, Chief Justice of Bangladesh
(L-R) Deputy Registrar Audrey Lim, Registrar Foo Chee Hock, Chief
Executive Officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria David Ware and
Senior Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin
40
Minister of Justice of Sri Lanka His Excellency Rauff
Hakeem and his delegation calling on The Honourable
the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong
STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT
Registrar Foo Chee Hock delivering his speech at
the Staff Workplan Seminar 2011
Supreme Court Staff
Workplan Seminar
The Supreme Court Staff Workplan Seminar
2011 was held on 19 April 2011. The Seminar
provided an opportunity for staff to take
stock of the Supreme Court’s Workplan over
a two-year planning cycle. Themed “ACE-it-2gether”, staff were introduced to the concept
of Design Thinking as a possible pathway
towards transformative innovation.
The objectives of the seminar were to:
• Communicate strategic objectives and key
initiatives for Financial Year (FY) 2011
42
Supreme Court staff viewing the exhibits set up during the
Staff Workplan Seminar 2011
• Highlight areas of focus for the
coming year
• Review and celebrate the achievements
of FY2010
• Introduce the concept of Design Thinking
The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek
Keong graced the occasion and presented
various awards to the staff, such as the National
Day Award, Excellent Service Award and Star
Service Award. He also gave away prizes to
the winning Work Improvement Teams.
Strategic Management
Registrars and Justices’ Law Clerks at iFly in Sentosa
Legal Colloquium
On 14 October 2011, registrars and Justices’ Law
Clerks (JLCs) participated in the Supreme Court’s
Legal Colloquium – an annual corporate retreat
for the registrars and JLCs.
Kicking off the Colloquium, the JLCs gave an
update on recent cases heard in the Supreme
Court. It was an interactive session where the
audience and the presenters actively engaged in
discussions. This was followed by a quiz on legal
knowledge and trivia.
The highlight of the day was the indoor simulated
skydive experience in a wind tunnel at iFly, one of
the latest attractions at Sentosa. The participants
43
Expert corner negotiations at the “Luge”
The Conference itself was a light-hearted
event which consisted of two fun and thoughtprovoking skits performed by combined
directorate teams which reiterated the
importance of good customer service. Other
programmes included video-clips featuring
interviews with the Supreme Court’s PS21 Star
Service Award winners, Mr Chia Kum Khuen
and Mr Shabab s/o Ali Qadir, as well as onstage
‘live’ sharing by Mr Jimmy Liew and Mr Lim
then braved a slight drizzle and took a “skyride”
to the top of a hill and raced down a steep slope
in a sled-like vehicle known as a “Luge”.
Customer Service
Conference
The second Customer Service Conference of
the Supreme Court was held on 19 October
2011, two years after the inaugural conference
in 2009. The theme “M.A.D again about
Customer Service” re-affirmed the Supreme
Court’s commitment to the ideals of the first
Customer Service Conference.
The Conference was preceded by emails
containing quizzes to staff of the Supreme
Court, to enhance awareness of the Supreme
Court’s Customer Service Creed. The
organising committee also staged a road-show
to test the various directorates on how well they
remembered the Customer Service Creed.
44
Singing their hearts out about Customer Service, the
Supreme Court way
The winning team of the Customer Service
Conference skit contest
Strategic Management
The happy participants at the Customer Service Conference
Cher Yeow on good customer service rendered
to external customers of the Supreme Court.
There was also a song-writing and singing
competition, where participants sang songs
with altered lyrics pertaining to customer
service. Some participants even wrote original
songs for the event. Their performances were
indeed deserving of praise and provided much
entertainment for those who attended the
Conference.
To close the event, Registrar Foo Chee Hock and
Deputy Registrar Audrey Lim handed out prizes to
the winners of the various competitions.
Supreme Court Translation
Audio Resource System
(STARS)
The Supreme Court Translation Audio Resource
System (STARS) is a user-friendly database that
promotes uniformity in the interpretation of
45
To publicise the availability of STARS to
Government agencies and interested
organisations, STARS on Web was launched
on the Supreme Court website in October
2011. It provides Web-users with useful
information on STARS and allows them to try
out the unique features online.
The Supreme Court Translation Audio Resource
System (STARS)
common terms and expressions in High Court
proceedings. Previously, court interpreters relied
on their personal hard copy glossaries when they
carried out translations. With STARS, interpreters
now have quick access to a central database that
makes translating difficult or technical terms
easier and faster.
STARS initially launched with a database
comprising close to 7,000 terms in seven main
categories - Legal, Commerce, Building and
Construction, Information Technology, Court
Greetings, Medical and Latin terms. The database
was expanded to cover over 13,000 additional terms
in eight new categories - Logistics, Management,
Maritime, Psychology, Securities, Planning and
Development, Finance and Insurance and Police
Terms.
STARS is made more unique by the fact that it
provides audio files of the terms in the four major
languages used in Singapore. Accessing the
audio files in the English, Chinese, Malay and
Tamil languages is now a click away.
46
Organisational Accolades
In 2011, the Supreme Court was conferred the
following awards:
Total Defence Award - Distinguished Defence
Partner Award
- Conferred by the Ministry of Defence
in recognition of outstanding support
for Total Defence.
Energy Smart Office Award
- Conferred by the National Environment
Agency in recognition of efforts taken to
promote environmental sustainability.
BCA Green Mark for Buildings Award – Gold
- Conferred by the Building and
Construction Authority in recognition of
excellence in the built environment in the
areas of safety, quality, sustainability and
user-friendliness.
TIMELINESS OF
JUSTICE
TIMELINESS OF
JUSTICE
Workload Statistics
Caseload and Disposal in 2011
In 2011, the Supreme Court received a total of
13,146 new civil and criminal matters. In the same
period, a total of 12,859 matters were disposed
of. The clearance rate# for all civil and criminal
matters for 2011 was 98%.
The breakdown of the caseload and disposal
of the civil and criminal proceedings for 2011
are shown in the following charts. The resultant
clearance rates are reflected accordingly.
Civil Jurisdiction
8,000
No. of Cases
6,000
97%
Filed
97%
5,757 5,609
Disposed
Clearance Rate
6,032 5,876
4,000
89%
2,000
698
624
0
Civil Originating Civil Interlocutory Appeals before
Processes
Applications
the High Court
98%
136%
159
217
83
81
Appeals before
Applications
the Court of
before the Court
Appeal
of Appeal
Criminal Jurisdiction
111%
300
270
250
No. of Cases
Filed
Disposed
Clearance Rate
244
200
150
106%
104%
89
100
50
50
94
128%
81%
52
16
0
Criminal Cases
Criminal
Motions*
Magistrate’s
Appeals
13
Criminal
Revisions
18
23
Criminal Appeals
* Figure includes Criminal Motions before the Court of Appeal.
48
#
The percentage stated may exceed 100% when the case disposal figure is greater than the filing figure. Disposal figures may include cases filed in previous
year(s) which were disposed of in the current year.
Timeliness of Justice
Caseload and Disposal Trends
The volume of cases in 2011 was about 2% lower
than that for 2010. This was attributable to the
lower volume of civil and criminal appellate matters
received in 2011.
The clearance rate for all civil and criminal matters
in 2011 was 98%, the same as for 2010.
A comparison of caseload and disposal between
2011 and 2010 is illustrated in the charts that follow.
Civil Jurisdiction
2010
No. of Cases Filed
8,000
6,000
5,523
5,757
2011
6,248 6,032
4,000
2,000
781
0
Civil Originating
Processes
Civil
Interlocutory
Applications
698
242
159
125
83
Appeals
Appeals
Applications
before the High before the Court before the Court
Court
of Appeal
of Appeal
No. of Cases Disposed Of
8,000
2010
6,000
5,703 5,609
2011
5,938 5,876
4,000
2,000
776
0
Civil Originating
Processes
Civil
Interlocutory
Applications
624
186
217
119
81
Appeals
Appeals
Applications
before the High before the Court before the Court
Court
of Appeal
of Appeal
49
Criminal Jurisdiction
350
No. of Cases Filed
2010
309
300
244
250
200
150
100
50
89
36
50
56
13
0
Criminal Cases
Criminal
Motions*
No. of Cases Disposed Of
300
Magistrate’s
Appeals
278
16
Criminal
Revisions
30
Criminal
Appeals
2010
270
18
2011
250
200
150
94
100
50
0
44
52
48
13
Criminal Cases
Criminal
Motions*
Magistrate’s
Appeals
* Figure includes Criminal Motions before the Court of Appeal.
50
2011
13
Criminal
Revisions
32
23
Criminal
Appeals
Timeliness of Justice
Waiting Periods
Targets for waiting periods in various court
processes have been set as part of the
Supreme Court’s commitment to the provision
of quality public service. These targets are
reviewed annually to ensure that they are
realistic and match international benchmarks.
The Supreme Court endeavours to achieve
90% compliance with all targets set. For the
past few years, the targets set have all been
consistently achieved.
The average timelines for waiting periods
achieved are set out in the tables that follow for
the corresponding years of 2010 and 2011. In
particular, trial dates for civil cases were given
within four weeks of the date of set down.
Original Civil Jurisdiction
Type of Proceedings
Target set by
Department
Achievement*
2010
2011
Trials in Writ Action
8 weeks from the date of
set down to trial
2.9 weeks
3.1 weeks
Originating Summonses (OS)
5 weeks from the date of
filing of the OS
4.4 weeks
4.3 weeks
3 weeks from the date of
filing of the OS
1.3 weeks
1.0 week
Bankruptcy OS#
6 weeks from the date of
filing of the OS
3.2 weeks
3.4 weeks
Company Winding-Up OS
4 weeks from the date of
filing of the OS
3.5 weeks
3.4 weeks
Probate OS
5 weeks from the date of
filing of the OS
3.5 weeks
4.1 weeks
(i)
Inter partes
(ii) Ex parte
“Achievement” refers to the average timelines attained for the year and excludes court vacations.
This item refers to applications for bankruptcy orders (known as bankruptcy petitions prior to April 2006) only.
*
#
51
Type of Proceedings
Summonses (SUM)
(i) Summonses for summary
judgment pursuant to
Order 14 of the Rules of
Court
(ii) All other summonses
Target set by
Department
Achievement*
2010
2011
5 weeks from the date of
filing of the SUM
(statutory minimum period of
4.4 weeks)
4.9 weeks
4.6 weeks
3 weeks from the date of
filing of the SUM
Before
Judge
1.3 weeks
Before
Judge
1.9 weeks
Before
Registrar
1.2 weeks
Before
Registrar
1.2 weeks
Probate SUM
4 weeks from the date of
filing of the SUM
2.5 weeks
3.1 weeks
Bankruptcy SUM#
4 weeks from the date of
filing of the SUM
(statutory minimum period of
3 weeks)
3.9 weeks
3.9 weeks
Original Criminal Jurisdiction
Type of Proceedings
Trials of Criminal Cases
Target set by
Department
6 weeks from the date of the
preliminary inquiry
“Achievement” refers to the average timelines attained for the year and excludes court vacations.
This item refers to applications for discharge only.
*
#
52
Achievement*
2010
2011
5.4 weeks
5.0 weeks
Timeliness of Justice
Appellate Civil Jurisdiction
Target set by
Department
Type of Proceedings
Achievement*
2010
2011
Appeal to the Court of Appeal
(i) Civil appeals heard
before 2 Judges
Ready to be heard within
12 weeks from the date of
notification to collect the
record of proceedings (ROP)
12.0 weeks
12.0 weeks
(ii) Civil appeals heard
before 3 Judges
Ready to be heard within
16 weeks from the date of
notification to collect the
ROP
16.0 weeks
15.9 weeks
3 weeks from the date of
filing of the appeal
2.0 weeks
2.2 weeks
4 weeks from the date of
filing of the appeal
(against assessment of
damages)
2.6 weeks
2.8 weeks
4 weeks from the date of
receipt of the ROP
3.2 weeks
3.3 weeks
Registrar’s Appeals to the High
Court Judge in Chambers
Appeals to the High Court from
the Subordinate Courts
Appellate Criminal Jurisdiction
Type of Proceedings
Target set by
Department
Achievement*
2010
2011
Appeal to the Court of Appeal
8 weeks after the week
of receipt of the last
confirmation of the ROP
8.0 weeks
6.7 weeks
Appeals to the High Court from
the Subordinate Courts
8 weeks from the date of
receipt of the ROP
6.0 weeks
5.9 weeks
“Achievement” refers to the average timelines attained for the year and excludes court vacations.
*
53
Caseload and Disposal of Cases relating to Disciplinary
Proceedings
Under the Legal Profession (Disciplinary
Tribunal) Rules, the Disciplinary Tribunal
Secretariat is established by the Supreme
Court to provide administrative support to a
Disciplinary Tribunal.
In 2011, The Honourable the Chief Justice
Chan Sek Keong appointed 16 Disciplinary
Tribunals, as compared to 10 Disciplinary
Tribunals in 2010. Together with four cases
brought forward from 2010, the caseload of
the Disciplinary Tribunal Secretariat stood
at 20 cases. Of these 20 cases, the hearings
54
for 13 cases have been completed, leaving
seven outstanding cases to be heard in 2012.
In the year under review, the Court of Three
Judges heard five cases involving eight
Advocates and Solicitors. Of these, three
Advocates and Solicitors were struck off the
Roll of Advocates and Solicitors, three were
suspended for 30 months, and one was fined
$50,000 and censured. The Court of Three
Judges also adjourned a hearing involving one
Advocate and Solicitor to a date to be fixed.
QUALITY OF
JUSTICE
QUALITY OF
JUSTICE
Significant Decisions of the Court of Appeal
Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd v Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd [2011] 4
SLR 381
By JLCs Germaine Boey and Seraphina Fong
In this case, the Court of Appeal clarified that
the word “author” under the Copyright Act
(Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the Copyright Act”)
referred to natural persons and should not
extend to corporate entities. Copyright law
was intended to encourage the creativity of
natural authors. A “qualified person” under
s 27 of the Copyright Act referred to a natural
person only. Furthermore, the duration of
copyright protection had always been based
on the author’s life expectancy. Corporate
entities would enjoy perpetual monopoly over
their works if they qualified as “authors”. This
would not strike the right balance between the
interests of the author and the public.
The Court also observed that the interpretation
of “author” in Alteco Chemical Pte Ltd
v Chong Yean Wah (trading as Yamayo
Stationery Manufacturer) [1995] 2 SLR(R) 915
56
(“Alteco”) should not be followed. Alteco
interpreted “author” to include a person who
made necessary arrangements or paid for the
creation of a work. Authorship and ownership
were distinct concepts. A work created by an
employee was dependent on his lifespan even
if first ownership vested in the employer. The
Court also found that the presumption under
s 131 of the Copyright Act was displaced when
the very question of authorship, and not merely
the identity of the author, was disputed.
The respondent’s claim for copyright
infringement failed because it could not
identify a human author or authors responsible
for the compilation tables in its magazine.
The Court also dismissed the respondent’s
claim in passing off because the element of
misrepresentation was not proven.
Quality of Justice
Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General [2011] 3 SLR 778
By JLCs Justin Yeo and Calvin Liang
This case arose from an application by the
Attorney-General to commit the appellant
for contempt of court on the ground of
scandalising the judiciary (“scandalising
contempt”) in relation to 14 statements
contained in the book which he had authored.
The High Court had found the appellant in
contempt of court for 11 of the impugned
statements and sentenced him to six
weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of $20,000
(or, in default, two weeks’ imprisonment).
The Court of Appeal reiterated that
scandalising contempt was a public injury and
not a private tort. Its fundamental purpose
was to ensure that public confidence in the
administration of justice was not undermined.
It was not intended to protect the dignity of
judges. Regarding the test for liability, the
Court of Appeal clarified that the “real risk”
test and not the “inherent tendency” test
represented the law in Singapore. This was
also preferred to the more stringent “clear
and present danger” test because the “real
risk” test paid more attention to the balance
between the right to freedom of speech on
the one hand and its abuse on the other.
Additionally, the nature, tenor and thrust
of Commonwealth case law and legislation
were more consistent with the concept of fair
criticism going towards liability as opposed
to it being a separate defence. Thus, the
court ought always to bear in mind the
following key question: did the impugned
statement constitute fair criticism; or did
it go on to cross the legal line by posing a
real risk of undermining public confidence in
the administration of justice, in which case
it would constitute contempt? On the issue
of sentencing, the Court also held that there
was no starting point of imprisonment for
the offence of scandalising contempt. The
57
sanction imposed would depend on the
precise facts and context of each case.
Applying these principles, the Court of
Appeal found the appellant in contempt
for nine of the impugned statements.
Nonetheless, the appellant’s sentence was
affirmed because there was no reason to
grant a sentencing discount – as the High
Court had done – to signal that the court had
no interest in stifling legitimate debate. It
was clear that debate on the death penalty
as well as other areas of law would always
be open to all. However, when conduct
crossed the legal line and constituted
scandalising contempt, it was no longer
legitimate and a discount could not be
accorded to the contemnor for abusing his
right to free speech.
Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General [2011] 2 SLR 1189
By JLCs Debra Lam and Kenneth Wong
In 2008, the appellant was convicted of a capital
drug trafficking offence and sentenced to death.
On 11 August 2009, he submitted a petition to
the President for clemency under Article 22P of
the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore
(1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Singapore
Constitution”) but his petition was declined. On
21 July 2010, the appellant applied for leave to
commence judicial review proceedings seeking
declarations that: (i) under Article 22P, the
clemency power was exercisable by the President
acting in his discretion; (ii) the appellant should
be granted clemency; (iii) under Article 22P(2),
the appellant was entitled to disclosure of the
materials sent to the Cabinet in connection with
his petition (“the Article 22P materials”); and (iv)
there be an indefinite stay of execution of the
death sentence imposed on the appellant. The
High Court heard the appellant’s application for
leave to commence judicial review proceedings
58
under O 53 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R
5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the Rules of Court”) together
with his application for the substantive reliefs
and dismissed the applications. The appeal was
subsequently dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
In the judgment, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA
and V K Rajah JA clarified that the President had
no personal discretion in exercising the clemency
power. Instead, he had to act on the advice of the
Cabinet. The latter could not be held to the same
standard of impartiality and objectivity applicable
to a court of law or a tribunal exercising a quasijudicial function and was entitled to take into
account public policy considerations and the
legislative policy underlying the imposition of the
death sentence. As regards counsel’s argument
that the appellant had a legitimate expectation
that the President would exercise the clemency
power, the Court observed that an expectation
Quality of Justice
was only legitimate if founded upon a promise or
practice by a public authority. No such promise
was made in this case. Further, counsel’s argument
that there was a right to disclosure of the Article
22P materials was premised on the petitioner
having a right to petition for clemency and/or a
right to be heard during the clemency process.
No such rights existed, and so there was no right
of disclosure.
The following observations made by the Chief
Justice are also worth noting: (i) under O53 of the
Rules of Court, the court had no power to grant
the declaratory relief sought by the appellant;*
(ii) the clemency power was an extraordinary
executive power exercised as an act of executive
grace and not as a matter of legal right; and (iii) that
being said, the clemency power was amenable to
judicial review, as the requirement for the Article
22P materials to be submitted to Cabinet for its
consideration implied a constitutional duty on
Cabinet’s part to consider the materials impartially
and in good faith before advising the President.
* O 53 r 1(1) of the Rules of Court has been amended such that an application for a mandatory order, prohibiting order or quashing order (“the principal application”) may include
an application for a declaration if leave is granted for the principal application. This amendment came into effect on 1 May 2011, after the Court of Appeal rendered its judgment in
Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General [2011] 2 SLR 1189 on 4 April 2011.
AJU v AJT [2011] 4 SLR 739
By AR Colin Seow and JLC Karin Lai
In this case, the Court of Appeal reversed
the High Court’s decision to set aside an
international arbitration interim award on
public policy grounds. At the hearing, the
High Court disagreed with the arbitral
tribunal’s finding in the interim award that a
settlement agreement concluded between
the appellant and respondent was not
illegal. Accordingly, the interim award was
set aside pursuant to Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of
the UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration (“the Model Law”)
as set out in the First Schedule to the
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A,
2002 Rev Ed) (“the IAA”).
The Court of Appeal held that the public
policy objection envisaged in Article 34(2)(b)
(ii) of the Model Law was not even engaged
in the first place to justify the High Court’s
intervention in the arbitral tribunal’s findings
made in its award. As such, the High Court
was wrong to have intervened and reopened
the arbitral tribunal’s finding on the legality
of the settlement agreement on which the
interim award was based.
In reversing the High Court’s decision, the
Court of Appeal emphasised that s 19B(1)
of the IAA called for the court to give
deference to factual findings of arbitral
tribunals. This meant that findings of fact
59
made in an award to which the IAA applied
(“IAA awards”) were binding on the parties
and could not be reopened except where there
was fraud, breach of natural justice or some
other recognised vitiating factor. It was held
that the High Court was not entitled to reject
the arbitral tribunal’s findings and substitute its
own findings for them.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal also
explained that since it was a question of law
what the public policy of Singapore was, an
arbitral award could be set aside if the arbitral
tribunal made an error of law in that regard. The
Court of Appeal further took the opportunity
to clarify that there was no difference between
the thresholds for invoking public policy under
Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model Law (which
dealt with the setting aside of IAA awards) and
under s 31(4)(b) of the IAA (which dealt with
the refusal of enforcement of foreign arbitral
awards). In clarifying this point, the Court
of Appeal emphasised that the legislative
purpose of the IAA was to treat all IAA awards
as having an “international focus”, just as all
foreign arbitral awards were, by definition,
treated as having the same.
Mohammad Ashik bin Aris v Public Prosecutor [2011] 4 SLR 802
By JLC Tan Zhongshan
This appeal was a direct challenge to the legality
of the procedures used by the Health Sciences
Authority (“the HSA”) to test urine for the
presence of controlled or specified drugs. The
consumption of these drugs was an offence
pursuant to s 8(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
(Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”). In order
to facilitate the prosecution of this offence, the
presence of positive results from two urine tests
conducted under s 31(4)(b) of the MDA would
trigger a presumption that the person whose
urine was tested had, in contravention of s 8(b), in
fact consumed the relevant drugs.
60
In a separate case in 2010, a High Court
Judge had remarked, obiter, that the HSA
procedures might not be in compliance with the
requirements stipulated by s 31(4)(b) of the MDA.
This present case was brought before the High
Court as a test case in order to obtain a definitive
ruling on this point. At first instance, the Judge
held that the HSA procedures complied with
s 31(4)(b) of the MDA.
The appellant’s appeal against the Judge’s ruling
was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that
the phrase “a urine test shall be conducted ...
Quality of Justice
by ... an analyst” in s 31(4)(b) of the MDA did not
necessarily mean that the person who “conducts”
the urine test had to personally carry out, or
personally supervise in real-time, all the steps
which constitute the urine test. The appellant’s
argument that an analyst had to be continuously
present throughout the urine-testing process
was not supported by the purpose of s 31(4)(b).
The HSA analysts had a meaningful and effective
means of supervision over the entire process
without having to be continuously present or
having to carry out each step in the process. The
division of labour between laboratory officers
and analysts was an efficient arrangement which
nonetheless provided a sufficient safeguard for
accused persons.
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Hashu Dhalomal Shahdadpuri and another
[2011] 3 SLR 1186
By AR Terence Tan
This appeal raised the novel and complex
issue of whether it was plain and obvious
that the appellant’s claim was a claim for
unpaid output tax and/or a claim arising out
of acts jure imperii (state acts of a sovereign
or governmental character) and/or involving
the enforcement of a foreign governmental
interest so as to contravene the revenue rule
and be unenforceable in the Singapore court.
The appellant was an entity of the UK
Government who was responsible for, amongst
other things, the collection and management
of value added tax in the UK. The appellant
claimed that the respondents (acting in
concert with other parties) had conspired
by unlawful means to defraud the appellant
through missing trader intra-community
(“MTIC”) fraud and to conceal the fraud and
its proceeds from the appellant.
In allowing the appeal and setting aside
the trial judge’s decision to strike out the
appellant’s claim, the Court of Appeal held
that it was not plain and obvious that the
appellant’s claim was a claim for unpaid
output tax and/or a claim arising out of acts
jure imperii and/or involving the enforcement
of a foreign governmental interest. Instead, the
appellant’s claim could also be interpreted as
a claim for the recovery of input tax which the
appellant had been deceived into reimbursing
an exporter who was an innocent actor in the
chain of transactions that was conceived as
61
part of the conspiracy to defraud the appellant.
The Court of Appeal further found that whether
or not the appellant’s claim would be contrary
to the revenue rule was an issue for our court to
decide at a full trial, and not at the interlocutory
striking-out stage. The Court of Appeal was
also of the view that although there was no
doubt that the appellant’s central interest in
bringing this action was to recover the money
which it had paid to the exporter pursuant to
the latter’s claim for reimbursement of input
tax, this still raised the question of whether
the appellant’s claim could legitimately be
characterised as an action to enforce the
sovereign rights or interests of a foreign state.
This was a novel and complex issue of law
which merited fuller consideration.
Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 1279
By JLC Jeremy Yeo
The respondent in this case lodged a complaint
against an advocate and solicitor, but after the
process of inquiry, the Council of the Law Society
of Singapore (“the Law Society”) dismissed the
complaint. The respondent applied to a High
Court Judge to review the Council’s decision
under s 96(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap
161, 2001 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) and was partially
successful. The Law Society was ordered to pay
50% of the respondent’s costs in the review. The
Law Society appealed against this order of costs.
The Court of Appeal, following the case of
Baxendale-Walker v Law Society [2008] 1 WLR
426, decided that where the Law Society was
appearing in litigation as a public regulator
exercising disciplinary functions, the starting
point would be that no costs order would be
made against it. This approach would prevent
62
public regulators from being deterred from
carrying out their regulatory functions by the
possibility of adverse cost orders. However, costs
might still be ordered against the Law Society
where it had carried out its public function in
bad faith or in a grossly derelict manner. In the
present case, the Court of Appeal held that
even if the High Court Judge had applied the
Baxendale-Walker principle as the starting
point, she might well have come to the same
conclusion on the issue of costs, having regard to
the conduct of counsel for the Law Society.
Having made these findings, the Court of Appeal
went on to decide that it had no jurisdiction to
hear the appeal in any event as there was no
statutory right of appeal from reviews heard by a
Judge under ss 95, 96 and 97 of the LPA. The Law
Society’s appeal was therefore dismissed.
Quality of Justice
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR 1205;
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecution and another matter
[2011] 4 SLR 791
By JLC Jeremy Yeo
The appellants were convicted of murder by
the High Court. Before the Court of Appeal, the
Prosecution changed its position to argue that the
second appellant was present at the scene of the
murder but was only guilty of robbery with hurt. In
the course of investigations, several statements
containing confessions were taken from the second
appellant in breach of the procedural requirements
in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev
Ed) and the Police General Orders. In addition,
the Prosecution did not disclose three statements
made by the victim’s husband until a late stage of
the trial. These statements said that there was only
one intruder at the scene, which supported the
second appellant’s alibi defence.
The Court of Appeal found that the procedurally
irregular confessions taken from the second
appellant should have been excluded from
evidence as being more prejudicial than probative.
This, coupled with the unreliability of his other
confessions and the lack of other objective evidence
linking him to the crime scene, led to the second
appellant’s appeal being allowed. In addition, the
Court observed that the Prosecution was under a
duty, ethical if not legal, to disclose certain types of
unused material to the Defence. This included the
three statements made by the victim’s husband,
which should have been disclosed at an earlier
stage of the proceedings.
The Prosecution subsequently filed a criminal
motion seeking clarification of its disclosure duties.
The Court of Appeal held that it had an inherent
jurisdiction to hear applications for clarification.
However, it would only do so if the case contained
a patent ambiguity and the clarification requested
was genuine, necessary in the public interest
and made within a reasonable time. The Court
clarified that the Prosecution’s duty of disclosure
extended only to material within the Prosecution’s
knowledge. The Prosecution had no duty to
search for additional material. The Court stated
that this duty of disclosure was both institutional
and personal. Accordingly, where an individual
prosecutor knew of material and a case where
such material should be disclosed, he was under
a duty to arrange for disclosure of that material
regardless of whether he was directly assigned to
that case. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, the
Court stated that its decision in Muhammad bin
Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR
1205 would not affect the operation of any ground
for non-disclosure recognised by any law.
63
Tan Chong Koay and another v Monetary Authority of Singapore [2011] 4 SLR 348
By JLC Jeremy Yeo
The first appellant founded the second
appellant – a company in the fund management
business. Between 29 and 31 December 2004,
the appellants purchased a number of shares in
United Envirotech Ltd (“UET”) through a remisier
by accepting “sell” bids placed by independent
sellers on the Singapore Exchange’s board. All
except one of these purchases were made very
near to the close of trading each day. Following
these purchases, the closing price of UET shares
rose about 17% from 27 December 2004 to 31
December 2004.
purpose was to bolster the year-end valuation
of certain funds holding UET shares managed
by the second appellant and a related company.
The Court of Appeal held that the appellants’
acceptance of genuine “sell” offers made by
independent investors did not mean that their
purchases reflected genuine demand as they
were not motivated by legitimate investment
purposes. In the light of the relevant aggravating
factors and the policy purpose of the SFA,
the Court of Appeal upheld the civil penalty
imposed on the appellants by the High Court.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the High
Court’s finding that the appellants had, in
violation of the second limb of s 197(1)(b) of the
Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev
Ed) (“the SFA”), intended to set the price of UET
shares for the end of the year 2004. The primary
The Court also observed that the structure of
s 197 of the SFA suggested that s 197(1) imposed
strict liability unless otherwise stated. However,
no final view was expressed on the mens rea
requirements of that section.
Tjong Very Sumito and others v Chan Sing En and others [2011] 4 SLR 580
By JLC Jeremy Yeo
The appellants appealed against the decision
of a High Court Judge who ordered them to
pay security for costs. The Judge had found
that they were ordinarily resident outside
64
Singapore. In addition, he found that the first
appellant was, in addition to being ordinarily
resident outside Singapore, also ordinarily
resident in Singapore. The Judge found
Quality of Justice
that in such a case he had the jurisdiction to
make an order for security for costs under
O 23 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006
Rev Ed) (“the Rules of Court”).
The Court of Appeal decided that it was
possible for a person to be ordinarily resident
in more than one jurisdiction and therefore to
be ordinarily resident both inside and outside
Singapore. The Court of Appeal also held
that the court would have jurisdiction to order
security for costs against such a person under
O 23 r 1(1)(a) of the Rules of Court, which referred
expressly to the situation where a plaintiff was
ordinarily resident out of Singapore’s jurisdiction.
The Court proceeded to uphold the Judge’s
finding that the appellants were ordinarily
resident in Indonesia and affirmed the exercise
of his discretion to order security for costs. The
appellants’ appeal was therefore dismissed.
Recent Amendments to the Rules of Court and the
Practice Directions
In 2011, a number of amendments were made
to the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev
Ed) (“the Rules of Court”) and the Supreme
Court Practice Directions (“the Practice
Directions”).
to the Court under the International Child
Abduction Act 2010 and an application of
disgorgement against a third party under the
new s 236L of the Securities and Futures Act,
respectively.
Amendments made to the Rules of Court
were gazetted on 21 February 2011, 28 April
2011, 29 April 2011 and 9 September 2011.
Some of the amendments were necessitated
by amendments to the Legal Profession Act
(Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) and the Securities and
Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed), as well
as the enactment of the International Child
Abduction Act 2010 (Act 27/2010).
There were other significant amendments,
including amendments to Order 53 and
Order 62. Order 53 now allows declarations to
be prayed for in judicial review proceedings
in addition to prerogative orders. It also
provides for a procedure to allow an applicant
to recover damages or other relief, if the
applicant can prove that he has a valid cause
of action that would have entitled him to the
relevant relief if the relief had been claimed
in a separate action. Order 62 clarifies that
service of documents may be carried out by
way of electronic means. The amendments
The amendments resulted in two new Orders
being enacted – Orders 102 and 103 which set
out the procedure relating to an application
65
to Orders 1, 5 and 12 of the Rules of Court
following amendments to the Legal Profession
Act and the Legal Profession (Prescribed Fees)
Rules (Cap 161, R 12, 2010 Rev Ed) were also
notable. These amendments allow an officer
of a company, a limited liability partnership,
an unincorporated association (other than a
partnership or a registered trade union) or a
registered trade union (as the case may be),
to represent that company, limited liability
partnership, unincorporated association or
registered trade union in proceedings in the
Subordinate Courts.
Practice Directions Amendment No. 1 of 2011
pertains to applications for admission as an
advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court
and is consequential to amendments to the
Legal Profession Act and the enactment
of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules
2011 (S 244/2011). It contains provisions for
deadlines for filing and service, procedure
for electronic applications, and prescribed
fees for admission applications.
This was followed by Practice Directions
Amendment No. 2 of 2011, which took effect
66
on 30 June 2011. Most significantly, it facilitates
the introduction of “paper-less” Court of
Appeal hearings in which soft copy, as opposed
to hard copy, documents would be referred to
during the hearing. It also provides guidelines
for the sale of immovable property by the sheriff
and permits the use of presentation slides for
all proceedings before the High Court, Court
of Appeal and Court of Three Judges, subject
to the approval of the Court.
On 12 December 2011, Practice Directions
Amendment No. 3 of 2011 clarified, inter
alia, that hard copy documents tendered
to the Court may be printed on one or
both sides, establishing timelines for the
filing of documents for preliminary inquiries
or committal hearings, and stipulating the
procedure for applications under the Mental
Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed).
Since the introduction of the electronic Rules
of Court and the electronic Practice Directions,
the Supreme Court has been capturing all
amendments to the Rules of Court and the
Practice Directions online and in real time.
ACCESSIBILITY TO
THE COURTS
ACCESSIBILITY
TO THE
COURTS
Public Outreach and Engagement
As a public institution, the Supreme Court
is dedicated to meeting the needs of court
users with an emphasis on accessibility. In
2011, the Supreme Court conducted public
education and awareness programmes that
focused on the roles of the Judiciary and the
Singapore legal system.
In the course of the year, the Supreme Court
welcomed some 13,000 local and overseas
visitors, including law practitioners and
visitors from other Judiciaries. More than
half of these visitors were students and
teachers. The visits allowed the visitors to
gain an insight into Singapore’s legal history
and the work of the Supreme Court.
In its effort to reach out to a wider audience,
the Supreme Court continued to engage
its educational partners to conduct guided
tours of the Supreme Court. One such
partner is the Singapore History Consultants,
an experienced tour agency conducting
heritage walks and guided tours of places of
interest.
In 2011, the Supreme Court also collaborated
with the Ministry of Education (MOE) in
68
organising the 21st General Paper (GP)
Seminar. The Supreme Court hosted some
400 GP teachers from junior colleges,
centralised institutions and Integrated
Programme schools. Introduced in 2001, the
Seminar is a national education platform for
GP teachers to stay abreast of current affairs
in Singapore. Jointly organised by MOE’s
Curriculum Planning and Development
Division and the Academy of Singapore
Teachers, the 21st GP Seminar presented an
overview of the Judiciary and legal system
in Singapore.
The Seminar’s keynote speaker was former
Attorney-General and current Dean of the
Singapore Institute of Legal Education,
Professor Walter Woon, who engaged the
participants in a dialogue session entitled
“Crime and Punishment in the Singapore
Legal System”.
The GP Seminar was well-received.
Participants provided feedback that they
would share with their students what they
had learnt about Singapore’s legal system
and the Supreme Court.
STAFF AND
ORGANISATION
STAFF AND
ORGANISATION
Getting ready for the Treetop Walk
Cohesion Day
On 6 October 2011, the Supreme Court
organised its inaugural Cohesion Day. Staff of
the Supreme Court went for a three kilometre
nature ramble at the HSBC Treetop Walk. The
Treetop Walk is a free-standing suspension
bridge about 25 metres high and 250 metres
long.
Spanning Bukit Peirce and Bukit
Kalang, the two highest points of MacRitchie
Reservoir, the walk gives a bird’s eye view of
the community of plants and animals in the
forest canopy.
The Supreme Court staff appreciated the
opportunity to take their eyes off their
computer screens and get to know their
colleagues better. Besides promoting interdepartmental interaction, the Treetop Walk
was also in keeping with the Singapore
Government’s vision of promoting healthy
lifestyles for civil servants.
70
Ending the day on a high note – the Supreme
Court management team survives the go-kart
challenge
Corporate Challenge
On 11 March 2011, 53 members of the
Supreme Court’s management team
attended a day-long Corporate Challenge at
Snow City and Kartright Speedway.
The team exchanged ideas on how to improve
the Supreme Court’s work processes during a
Staff and Organisation
The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong,
Registrar Foo Chee Hock, Deputy Registrar Audrey
Lim and the winners of Staff Awards 2011
brainstorming and presentation session. This
was followed by a team-building exercise
which required the management team to
think innovatively and out of the box.
In the afternoon, the management team
proceeded to Kartright Speedway for the
highlight of the day, go-kart racing. The
management team was divided into smaller
teams to compete against one another.
Each team was required to leverage on its
members’ strengths to formulate a winning
race strategy.
The activities provided opportunities for
closer interaction amongst fellow colleagues.
It also helped the management team forge
closer bonds of friendship. The day ended on
a high note with pizzas, drinks and laughter
all around.
Staff Awards
A number of Supreme Court staff were proud
recipients of various prestigious awards in 2011.
Four members of the staff were conferred
National Day awards in recognition of their
contributions and service:
• Ms Goh Cheng Hsien received the
Commendation Medal
• Mr Ju Toong Cheong received the Efficiency
Medal
• Mr S Raventhiran and Ms Kamisah Bte
Mohd Ibrahim each received the Long
Service Medal
In addition, Mr Chia Kum Khuen and Mr
Shabab s/o Ali Qadir were presented with the
PS21 Star Service Award for their commitment
to service excellence.
71
Participants at the conclusion of Walk the Talk 2011
Staff Welfare Activities
During the course of the year, a variety of
welfare activities were organised to engage
the staff.
There were events promoting healthy
lifestyles, such as lunchtime health talks
and a fun and educational trek around Fort
Canning Park. Other events which promoted
teamwork and encouraged camaraderie
included the Dinner and Dance 2011 as well
as a Family Day at the Marina Barrage. These
events were organised by the Judiciary
Recreation Club for staff of both the Supreme
Court and the Subordinate Courts.
In line with its goal to promote work-life
balance and a family-friendly environment,
the Supreme Court supported initiatives such
72
as the “Eat with Your Family Day” which was
held on 27 May 2011. Staff were encouraged
to enjoy a meal with their families and were
allowed to leave 30 minutes earlier on that day.
The Supreme Court also organised a “Bring
Our Kids to Work Day” which included games
and activities such as ice-cream making at the
Supreme Court Auditorium. Other staff welfare
activities included the distribution of fruits and
festive snacks, as well as sports and games for
staff to bond with their colleagues and cultivate
active lifestyles.
Observance ceremonies were also held for
National Day and Public Service Week, for
staff to reaffirm their loyalty to the nation
and their commitment to the ideals of the
Public Service.
Staff and Organisation
Corporate Calendar 2011
7 Jan
Opening of the Legal Year / Opening of the Legal Year Dinner
12 Jan
Opening of the Legal Year Staff Lunch
17 – 20 Jan
21st ISO 9001:2008 Internal Audit
22 Jan
Judiciary Recreation Club Paintball Competition
11 Mar
Corporate Challenge
15 Apr
First Annual ISO 9000 Surveillance Audit
19 Apr
Staff Workplan Seminar
20 May
Public Service Week Observance Ceremony
27 May
Eat with Your Family Day
10 Jun
Bring Our Kids to Work Day
6 Jul
Walk the Talk
18 Jul
Dinner for the Judiciary & Forum of Senior Counsel
22 Jul
Judiciary Recreation Club Dinner and Dance
5 Aug
National Day Observance Ceremony
11 – 12 Aug
International Conference on Electronic Litigation
27 Aug
Mass Call
6 Oct
Cohesion Day
14 Oct
Legal Colloquium
19 Oct
Customer Service Conference
18 Nov
LASCO Tea
25 Nov
Movie Night
29 Nov
Health Screening Exercise
73
Supreme Court Organisation Chart
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGES & JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS
REGISTRAR
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
SENIOR ASSISTANT REGISTRARS
& ASSISTANT REGISTRARS
JUSTICES’ LAW CLERKS
SENIOR DIRECTOR
(Personnel)
SENIOR DIRECTOR
(Office Mgmt & Security)
SENIOR DIRECTOR
(FFPD)
SENIOR DIRECTOR
(CCD)
DIRECTOR
(FFPD)
DIRECTOR
(CSD)
DIRECTOR
(Compliance)
DY DIRECTOR
(CCD)
SR AD
(Admin)
AD(HR)
SR AD
(Office
Mgmt)
AD(Admin)
ADs
(Office
Mgmt)
SR
HEAD
(HR)
HEAD
(Procurement)
HEADS
(HR&Admin)
HEADS
(Bldg Mgmt)
SR AD
(Security)
ADs
(CCD)
LIBRARIAN
SR
HEAD
(Security)
HEAD
(Security)
SR AD
(Procurement /
Compliance)
SR AD
(FFPD)
HEAD
(Finance)
SR HEADS
(CCD)
HEADS
(CCD)
Legend
AD Assistant Director
Admin Administration
Bldg Mgmt Building Management
CCD
Corporate Communications Department
CISD Computer Information
Systems Department
CPD
Corporate Planning Directorate
CSD
Corporate Services Directorate
DTS Digital Transcription Services
DT Sect Disciplinary Tribunal
Secretariat
DY Deputy
Enf Enforcement
FFPD Finance & Financial Policy Directorate
HR Human Resource
KM Knowledge Management
LD
Legal Directorate
LMD Learning and Management
Department
Office Mgmt Office Management
OS Originating Summons
S&I Specialised & Insolvency
SLS Statistics & Learning Section
SR Senior
SENIOR DIRECTOR
(LD)
SENIOR DIRECTOR
(CPD)
DIRECTOR
(LD)
DIRECTOR
(CPD)
SENIOR
DIRECTOR
(LMD)
SENIOR
DIRECTOR
(CISD)
DIRECTOR
(CISD)
DY DIRECTOR
(LD)
SR AD
(Civil)
SR AD
(Criminal
Matters
& Enf)
SR AD
(S&I
OS/
SLS)
HEARING
SUPPORT
MANAGERS
HEADS
(Interpreters)
MANAGER
(DTS)
AD
(LMD)
SR
HEAD
(Civil)
CHIEF
BAILIFF
(SHERIFF)
SR
HEAD
(SLS)
HEAD
HEAD
HEADS
/ CASE
/ SR CASE
/ SR CASE
MANAGER MANAGER MANAGER
(S&I/OS)
(Civil Trials & (Criminal
Trials &
Appeals)
Appeals)
HEAD
/ MANAGER
(DT Sect)
HEAD
/ SR
BUSINESS
CASE
ANALYST
MANAGER
(Diary
Management)
E-LEARNING
ANALYST/
PROGRAMMER
MEDIA
DEVELOPMENT
SPECIALIST
KM
OFFICER
POLICY
ANALYST
LEGAL
ANALYST
Staff Photos
REGISTRAR, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SENIOR ASSISTANT
REGISTRARS & ASSISTANT REGISTRARS
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
Ms Wendy Yap Peng Hoon
Ms Audrey Lim Yoon Cheng
Mr Foo Chee Hock
Ms Teh Hwee Hwee
Ms Cornie Ng Teng Teng
Ms Karen Tan Teck Ping
Ms Janice Wong Shi Hui
Ms Tan Wen Hsien
Mr Jordan Tan Zhengxian
Mr Paul Chan Wei Sern
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Mr Terence Tan Zhong Wei
Ms Eunice Chua Hui Han
Ms Elaine Liew Ling Wei
Ms Chee Min Ping
Mr Shaun Leong Li Shiong
Ms Ang Feng Qian
Ms Ang Ching Pin
Mr Tan Sze Yao
Mr Kevin Tan Eu Shan
Mr Louis Ng Shi Zheng
16
15
06
01
76
09
08
07
19
18
17
02
20
10
03
21
22
23
Ms Ong Luan Tze
Ms Sngeeta Devi d/o Surannad
Mr Jeyendran s/o Jeyapal
Not in Picture
Mr Yeong Zee Kin
Mr David Lee Yeow Wee
Mr Nathaniel Khng Yong-Ern
Ms Then Ling
Ms Elaine Chew Yi-Ling
21
11
12
04
22
13
05
23
14
JUSTICES’ LAW CLERKS
Ms Amy Seow Wai Peng
02 Ms Ruth Yeo Su An
03 Ms Crystal Tan Yan Shi
04 Ms Chua Shirin
05 Ms Germaine Boey Yi Ling
06 Ms Monica Chong Wan Yee
07 Ms Choo Yi Ming
08 Ms Aysuria Chang Su-Ya
09 Ms Debra Lam Qian Yi
10 Mr Tan Zhongshan
11 Ms Smriti Sriram
12 Mr Justin Yeo Rong Wei
11
26
25
24
10
Mr Tham Lijing
Mr Keith Han Guanyuan
27 Mr Joshua Lim Yong En
28 Mr Andrew Tan Shao Weng
29 Mr Seow Tzi Yang
30 Mr Jerald Foo Chuan Min
31 Mr Colin Seow Fu Hong
32 Mr Colin Liew Wey-Ren
Mr Alexander Sim Li’An
14 Mr Elgin Tay Wei Xiong
15 Mr Terence Ang Ming Sheng
16 Mr Lim Sing Yong
17 Mr Koo Zhi Xuan
18 Mr Kelvin Kow Weijie
19 Mr Jeremy Yeo Shenglong
20 Mr Ethan Tan Boon Hua
21 Mr Rajaram Vikram Raja
22 Ms Sarah Shi Pei-Yi
23 Mr Russell Low Tzeh Shyian
24 Mr Calvin Liang Hanwen
13
01
12
01
13
02
27
14
03
15
04
16
05
26
Not in Picture
Mr Evans Ng Hian Pheng
Ms Jurena Chan Pei Shan
30
29
28
25
18
17
06
32
31
07
19
08
20
21
23
22
09
77
CORPORATE SERVICES DIRECTORATE
09
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
Mr Albert Fan Chee Peng
Mr Jack Lim Soon Kok
Mr Ong Lian Shin
Ms Pam Lim Chui Chui
Mrs Selina Khor Ching Kek
Ms Katy Tay Wei Ling
Mr Jeremy Tang Wei Liang
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
Mr Tay Wee Boon
Ms Fionn Chua Yee Wai
Ms Lee Kam Yoke
Ms Kate Lim Kai Ling
Ms Jessie Teo Cheng Cheng
Ms Wong Loo Seng
Ms Serene Lim Chau Ti
02
10
03
11
04
12
05
13
06
14
07
08
Not in Picture
Mr Chia Kum Khuen
Mr Max Tan Lee Kien
Mr Muhammad Hakim Bin
Salim
COURTS SECTION
09
10
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
78
11
02
12
03
13 04
14
05
15
16
06
Mrs Yong Mei June
Ms Teresa Lee Lie Choo
Ms Carol Yap Wee Loo
Ms Patricia See Lay Wah
Ms Noriani Binte Masat
Ms Ramaiah Sandhakumali
Ms Leana Lim Kim Tee
Ms Da’ahliah Binte Samsuri
Mrs Tan Ser Kim
17
07
18
08
Ms Koh Beng Yan
11 Ms Oh Soh Wan
12 Mrs Adelia Sim-Tay Tzu Ching
13 Ms Haryati Binte Sungit
14
Ms Jane Tan Guan Noi
15 Ms Leong Yu Fun
16 Ms Anne Sim Hoon Kim
17 Ms Susan Ho Soo Fun
18 18 Ms Trudy Tay Lee Hoon
10
Not in Picture
Mr Raveendran s/o Sundram Pillai
Ms Agnes Yao Hui
Ms Ginny Tham Lye Leng
Ms Norashidah Binte Laily
Ms Cylin Chua Swee Lin
Mr Eugene Chng Eng Hai
Ms Arneda Binte Jasman
Ms Fiona Lau May Lian
Ms Alice Chua Tuan Yong
Mrs Quek Swee Peng
Ms Myra Chia Kam Sow
Ms Ainon Binte Samsuddin
COURT ORDERLIES
05
06
07
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Mr Jonathan Lim Boon Tay
09
Mr Ishak Bin Ali
Mr A Subramaniam Arunasalam 10
11
Mr Edwin Tan Jui Meng
12
Mr Terence Teo Tow Kwong
Mr Gabriel s/o V M S Nathan
Mr Jimmy Ho Weng Fu
Mr Bala Murugan s/o Rasalingam
Mr Mohamad Arshad Bin Jaffar
Mr Iskandar Bin Ramly
Mr Simon Sim Boon Hee
Mr Zulkarnain Bin Mohamed Salleh
08
02
10
09
03
11
12
04
Not in Picture
Mr Ahmad Hassin Bin Salim
Mr Mohamed Ariff Bin Mohd Esa
Mr Kamarudin Bin Ismail
Mr Titus Low Chung Kong
Mr Azhar Bin Johari
Mr L Tamil Selvan
Mr Jasman Bin Senen
LIBRARY
04
01
01
02
03
04
02
03
Ms Junaidah Bee Binte Abu Bakar
Not in Picture
Ms Seah Poh Geok
Ms Tik Lee Hwa
Ms Koh Swee Ngor
Mr Mohammad Fairul Bin Ahmad Suliman
79
FINANCE & FINANCIAL POLICY DIRECTORATE
01
01
02
03
04
05
02
03
04
Ms Goh Cheng Hsien
Ms Santhakumari d/o Moniandy
Mr Oh Chong Onn
Mr Henry Seet
Ms Sally Yeo Kim Lian
CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTORATE
05
04
01
01
02
03
04
80
06
02
07
08
03
Mr Mark Cheong Yew Kay
Mr Jam Chee Chong
Mr Daniel Lim Chwee Yong
Ms Elaine Tan Huay Ling
05
06
07
08
Ms Bridgitte Lee Jiahui
Ms Miruna d/o Ranjan
Ms Luenne Angela Choa Cheh Peng
Ms Joyce Ho Sow Chue
05
LEGAL DIRECTORATE, CIVIL TRIALS AND APPEALS SECTION
09
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
Mr S Raventhiran
Mr Harry Lim
Mr Paul Lee Gek Boon
Ms Carol Liew Lin Lin
Ms Jasmine Ong Bee Soon
Ms Ng Ah What
Mr Khoo Seng Hang
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
11
10
03
02
Mr Jailani Bin Jayos
Ms Vanessa Chan Yoke Leng
Ms Rashida Binte Mohammad Yatim
Ms Nur Alfishahrin Mohd
Ms Nancy Loong Peck Nyuk
Ms Kamisah Binte Mohamed Ibrahim
Ms Jarinah Binte Mustafa
15
16
17
04
15
14
13
12
05
06
17
16
07
08
Ms Rameeza Binte Haja Maideen
Ms Irene Boey Suay Leng
Mr Bennett Tan Chee Leong
Not in Picture
Ms Pam Ong
Mr Suleiman Bin Shariman
Ms Jasvier Kaur d/o Najar Singh
LEGAL DIRECTORATE, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND
HEARING SUPPORT SECTION
07
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
01
02
10
03
11
04
12
13
05
Ms Khairun Atika Binte Kamsan
Ms Tan Li Ping
Ms Carol Liew Lin Lin
Ms Jasmine Ong Bee Soon
Mr Noah Chan Yee Loong
Ms Sandiraleka d/o Kannandan
Ms S Vasuki
14
06
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
Ms Saimah Binte Yayah
Mr Shabab s/o Ali Qadir
Mr Yeo Boon Tat Raymond
Mr Mohamad Hisham Bin Samsudin
Ms Carmen Yeo Li Er
Ms Rahmania Binte Ali
Ms Rammiah Supuletchimi
Not in Picture
Ms Angela Philomena Chopard
Ms Yogeswari d/o N Vadivellu
Mr Mohamed Azhar Bin Haji Said
81
LEGAL DIRECTORATE, CRIMINAL TRIALS AND APPEALS AND
ENFORCEMENT SECTION
07
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
Mr Ho Nyuk Chang
Mr Kathiarasan s/o Supramaniam
Mr Carol Liew Lin Lin
Ms Jasmine Ong Bee Soon
Ms Harlina Binte Tambi
Mr Ju Toong Cheong
07
08
09
10
11
09
08
02
Mr Dave Lee Chun Leong
Mr Jimmy Liew Chee Heng
Ms T Ananthi
Mr Yang Rashidi Bin Samsudin
Mr Muhammad Bin Mohamed Ali
03
10
04
11
05
06
Not in Picture
Mr Wong Chee Kin
Mr Abdul Rahim Bin Sanoosi
Mr Zulkarnain Bin Yusoff
LEGAL DIRECTORATE, ORIGINATING SUMMONS
SECTION AND STATISTICS AND LEARNING SECTION
07
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
82
08
09
02
03
10
04
12
11
06
05
Ms Serene Chong Ching Yuet
Ms Chang Siew Teen
Ms Carol Liew Lin Lin
Ms Jasmine Ong Bee Soon
Ms Noraizah Bte Hamzah
Ms Lee Mei Teng
07
08
08
10
11
12
Ms Lee Kwee Ngor
Ms Wong Yen Peng
Ms Haryati Binte Jumahat
Ms Norizzah Binte Abdul Aziz
Ms Rani d/o Ram Hotechand
Ms June Teo Swee Choon
Not in Picture
Ms Molly Teh Meow Leng
Ms Deviki s/o Rengupillai Ramiah
Ms Santhi d/o Pannirselvam
Ms Irnawati Binte Akub
Ms Patsy Neo Geok Ling
Ms Ismaniza Binte Mohamad Ibrahim
CORPORATE PLANNING DIRECTORATE
18
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
Ms Nooreini Bte Atan
Ms Lim Puay Siang
Mr Lim Cher Yeow
Mr Yahya Bin Abu Hassan
Mr Chong Hoong Sang
Mr Masilamany Gnanaraj
s/o M Jesudasan
Ms Toh Bee Chuan
Ms Rageswari d/o Suppiah
Ms Mariana Bte Osman
Ms Tan Jinhe
Ms Liu Chee Kwan
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Ms Geeta d/o Vellu
Ms Nurul Sultana Bte Ali
Ahamed
Ms Seah Wei Chun
Ms Soh Hui San
Ms Wong Yin Ling
Ms Adlin Sandhora Binte Bahar
Mr Chris Teo Guo Wei
Ms Tong Wai Yee
Ms Vera Eu Lai Yi
Ms Leong Yuan Hong
Ms Yvonne Leung Shun Yee
19
09
10
01
02
23
24
25
26
22
21
20
11
03
12
04
23
13
05
24
14
15
06
25
16
07
26
17
08
Ms Ng Lian Hua
Ms Marina Wang Meng Si
Ms Nurfarhana Binte Mohamed Rehan
Mr Derrick Siew Yew Kheong
Not in Picture
Mr Daing Mohamed Farhan Bin Hashim
Ms Alamelu
Mr Ang Boon Kiong
LEARNING & MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
01
01
02
03
02
03
Ms Yeh Hui Teeng
Mr Ravi Prakash
Mr Ling Chih Kang
83
COMPUTER & INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT
07
01
01
02
03
04
05
06
84
Mr Ray Goh Seow Lye
Mr Chang Chee Young
Mr Leong Woon Loong
Mr Patrick Ng Chong Jin
Mr Allen Tan Yean Hum
Mr Daren Seah Kee Yim
07
08
09
10
11
Ms Tan Hong Ean
Ms Stella Kong Mei Lai
Ms Aileen Choo Ann Mei
Ms Melissa Lim Mei Ping
Ms Jasmine Lai Siew Ling
02
09
08
03
10
04
11
05
Not in Picture
Mr Andy Goh Joo Ping
Mr Lim Seow Beng
Mr Derrick Tan Eng Chu
06
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Editorial Committee
Assistant Registrar Janice Wong
Assistant Registrar Paul Chan
Assistant Registrar Elaine Liew
Luenne Angela Choa
Miruna Ranjan
Jam Chee Chong
Mark Cheong
In Consultation with
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong
Registrar Foo Chee Hock
and the Registry
With Warmest Appreciation to
All who have contributed to this publication
1 Supreme Court Lane
Singapore 178879
www.supremecourt.gov.sg