Small Claims Tribunals (Amendment) Bill

Ms Rahayu Mahzam asked if it would be useful to give litigants-in-person more time beyond 14 days to seek legal advice to prepare the notice of appeal. It is important to remember that the 14-day deadline is only for parties to file the Notice for Leave to Appeal. At this stage, the appellant need only set out the points of appeal briefly.

If the District Court gives leave to appeal, the appellant then has one month from that date to file his Notice of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal is in a prescribed form which is contained in the Tribunal Rules, which only requires the appellant to state the grounds of his appeal in brief.

It is only when the appellant files his Petition of Appeal, 21 days after serving the Notice of Appeal, that he is then required to set out in greater detail the particulars of the matters in regard to which the Tribunals are alleged to have erred. The appellant only has to make fuller submissions on his appeal on the day of the hearing before the District Court. I hope that this reassures Ms Rahayu Mahzam that an appellant will have ample time to seek legal advice on the appeal, if necessary.

On clause 16, Mr Murali Pillai asked whether allowing a case to be reheard on a ground involving issues of fact is, in fact, consistent with the previous approach of narrowing the scope of an appeal from the Tribunals to the High Court.

Clause 16 empowers the District Court to direct cases be remitted back to the Tribunals for reconsideration or rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal only in limited cases, such as where new facts become available and it is manifestly unjust to allow the original decision to stand. In such cases, even though leave to appeal to the High Court has not been granted as it does not concern an issue of law or jurisdiction, it is nonetheless important that parties are provided with an appropriate and right of recourse through the reconsideration and rehearing by Tribunals.

This, I will add, is also consistent with the practice in tribunals in other jurisdictions, such as those in Hong Kong and New Zealand.

On a related note, Mr Murali Pillai asked if empowering the District Court in this manner effectively gives the District Court supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunals. That is not the intention nor the desired effect of this clause. The District Court's power to remit cases for reconsideration, or order a rehearing, does not fall within the definition of "supervisory jurisdiction", and this is explained by the Court of Appeal in the case of Citiwall Safety Glass vs Mansource Interior. If Mr Murali Pillai wants the citation, it is [2015] 1 SLR 797. In particular, the District Court which remits a case or orders a rehearing is not reviewing the proceedings and decisions of the Tribunals below. It is merely directing that new evidence which was not previously considered, be considered by the Tribunals.

I now turn to the enforcement of Tribunals' decisions, on which a few Members spoke about. While the State Courts do not currently track statistics on the success rates of enforcing Tribunals' decisions, I fully agree with Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Desmond Choo that the enforcement process must be simplified and accessible to Court users.

The Tribunals have made steps in this direction. When an order is made, the Tribunal Magistrates will brief the claimant and respondent on (a) the consequences of non-compliance; with the hope that in doing so, the respondent will be more aware of the consequences of not obeying the order in favour of the claimant; (b) the options which a claimant has to enforce his order; so right at the outset, the claimant is aware of the suite of options that he has available; (c) provide information which the claimant may consider, in deciding whether it is worthwhile to commence enforcement proceedings or not; and (d) the typical enforcement fees that he might incur. So, all these are given upfront and told to the parties at the stage where the order is made. The Tribunal Magistrates will also give parties a brochure at the end of the hearing and address any questions that parties may have about the judgment. Members of the public may also approach the Tribunals' staff in person or through the Tribunals' hotline if they have any queries on the enforcement process.

Mr Louis Ng and Mr Desmond Choo asked if there are plans to relook the costs involved in enforcing a money order issued by the Tribunals, to make it more cost-efficient for the average claimant to enforce his order.

I thank Mr Louis Ng and Mr Desmond Choo for their suggestions. Indeed, MinLaw is currently reviewing the process of enforcing civil judgments and orders and this includes orders by the Tribunals as well, with the aim of making the enforcement process more affordable and, as far as possible, more effective. We will also study Mr Louis Ng’s suggestion to carve out separate enforcement processes for low-value claims.

I would add also, in relation to the proceedings, a suggestion brought up by Mr Dennis Tan that today, any individual, whether a party or a non-party to the Tribunal proceedings, can ask for and obtain a copy of the judgment, to find out what has happened and what was ruled and how it was ruled in each particular case.

On vacant possession, Mr Murali Pillai raised some concerns about the enforcement of a specific type of order which the Tribunals can make, namely, the power to order delivery of vacant possession in claims for unpaid rent. This was on the basis that not even the Magistrates' Court has jurisdiction to hear and try such action where there is no claim for a sum of money. And I think he is referring to section 52(1A) of the State Courts Act. Mr Murali Pillai asked if there will be safeguards when the Tribunals make this order. Insofar as Mr Murali Pillai is concerned that the Tribunals are being given the power to make an unduly onerous remedy, I would like to set out the following points in response.

First, the Tribunals have been hearing tenancy claims involving unpaid rent for some time now since 2005, and they have developed the relevant expertise to deal with this type of claims. Vacant possession is a usual remedy for unpaid rent. It is one of those follow-on consequences. If rent is not paid, particularly when it is not paid persistently, then it is only right that the landlord has an option for getting vacant possession back from the tenant. So, it is related to unpaid rent. And empowering the Tribunals to order the delivery of vacant possession where necessary broadens, in my view, fairly, the suite of orders available to ensure that justice is done.

Second, while it is correct that Magistrates Courts do not currently have the power to hear claims which are exclusively non-monetary in nature, they do have the power to hear claims for unpaid rent and make orders of vacant possession. The amendments merely extend this same power to the Tribunals for claims of lower value. And I have noted Mr Murali Pillai’s point on mesne profits and double rent as well. And all of that is really subject to the overarching jurisdictional limit. So, no more than $20,000 for rent – mesne profits or double rent.

Third, to ensure safeguards, the State Courts will also be instituting internal guidelines which will set out the factors for the Tribunals to consider before making an order for the delivery of vacant possession. That further enhances and strengthens and prevents any risk of such orders being made erroneously.

Finally, I wish to touch on the workload of the Tribunals, a point that Mr Dennis Tan also raised.

The various amendments and expansion of jurisdiction are likely to lead to an increase in workload. And that, ultimately, is the overall policy objective of these amendments. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the average number of cases handled by the Tribunals annually, and what the common types of cases were.

From 2015 to 2017, the Tribunals handled an average of more than 10,000 claims annually. The common types of cases are disputes over contracts for sale of goods and provision of services, followed by claims arising from damage to property, and leases of residential premises.

While the caseload of the Tribunals is likely to increase after the expansion of jurisdiction, I wish to assure Members that the Tribunals are prepared to deal with the increased caseload, and they will also, on their own, regularly review their resources to ensure that the Tribunals remain an efficient and effective avenue for the resolution of small claims.

Mr Dennis Tan also asked what is the anticipated growth in the number of cases. Just as a ballpark indicator, the number of cases filed in the State Courts where the claim was between $10,000, the current limit, and $30,000, the new limit, with consent, is about 9,000. So, there are about 9,000 cases which fall into that category. But bear in mind that this range includes claims from $20,000 to $30,000, cases which can only be brought to the Tribunals with consent. And there are also, on top of that, subject matter limitations, in terms of the kinds of cases that can be brought. So, we do not expect all of those 9,000 cases to surface in the Tribunals. There will be a portion of those. And certainly, that is the reason for these amendments – to drive more of the cases to the Tribunals as far as possible.

In conclusion, I wish to thank all Members who have spoken and supported this Bill. Refining the Tribunals to improve their processes and enhance access to justice requires an ongoing, long-term effort. The many helpful suggestions and thoughtful comments by each of the Members who have spoken today contribute to this worthy endeavour. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

*Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. (proc text)]

*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai.]*

[(proc text) Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. (proc text)]