HAVELOCK SQUARE NEWSJointly published by State Courts and Family Justice Courts, Singapore

Issue 03 | December 2015

President Tony Tan Keng Yam visited the State Courts and the Family Justice Courts on 12 October 2015. President Tan met with staff members of both Courts and was briefed by the State Courts on the recent initiatives they had implemented to enhance the delivery of justice, such as the establishment of the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution on 4 March 2015 and the Community Justice and Tribunals Division on 24 April 2015. President Tan was also briefed by the Family Justice Courts on its first year of establishment and the challenges for the future. President Tan noted that the Family Justice Courts are a restructured specialised body of courts to better serve litigants and deal with family disputes by bringing together all family related work under one roof.

In this Issue:HightlightsFamily Justice Courts’ First AnniversaryAppreciation Cocktail

2

Celebrating the State Courts Building’s40th Anniversary

4

Tri-Court Training for the Media 8

News from Family Justice CourtsThe 3rd Family Justice Practice Forum: “A Child’s Best Interest within Parental Conflict”

10

MOE Engagement Programme 2015 12

News from State CourtsHavelock Square Offsite Corporate Retreat 6Judicial Governance Programme 2015 7Extension of the Primary Justice Project to Criminal Matters

13

Roll-Out of the Pre-Trial Conference Centre 14The Judicial Duty to Give Reasons Revisited 15Simplified Process for Magistrate’s Court Cases: Nearly One Year On

16

Implementation of the Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015

17

State Courts National Day Charity Bazaar 19

PRESIDENT’S VISIT TO THE STATE COURTS AND THE FAMILY JUSTICE COURTS

2

The Family Justice Courts (FJC) held its First Anniversary Appreciation Cocktail for various stakeholders and partners on 1 October 2015 at the Supreme Court. The appreciation event was attended by judges, senior government officials, family practitioners and representatives from various volunteer, social and welfare groups.

FAMILY JUSTICE COURTS’ FIRST ANNIVERSARY APPRECIATION COCKTAIL

The appreciation opened with The Honourable the Chief Justice (CJ) Sundaresh Menon’s Welcome Address.

He noted that the FJC and the relevant laws it administers are attempting to move away from a purely litigation process, towards a multi-disciplinary approach to dispute resolution.

“This shift has necessitated greater integration between the courts and the legal process on the one hand, and the broader family justice ecosystem on the other,” he said.

He pointed out that there have been increases in the divorce rates, and the number of applications for Personal Protection Orders and Domestic Exclusion Orders has doubled since 1996. The number of youth arrests also accounts for about 22 per cent of the total crimes reported in Singapore annually, a figure that reflects an “over-representation of youth as a portion of all offenders”, he said.

He called for an approach that is holistic, multi-discplinary and collaborative. He expressed hope that all those whose work falls within the ambit of family justice will continue to work hand in hand to realise the objectives of the reforms embarked on, for the benefit of all the families who knock on our doors.

CJ’s Welcome Address was followed by the screening of a video prepared by the Community Justice Court. The video is entitled “Uncle” and tells the story of a little girl who believed her father was dead. However, it turned out that the “uncle” who had always been watching out for her was in fact her father. The video will be disseminated by the Community Justice Court for the first time through its social media platforms such as Youtube and Facebook to reach out to the public.

3

The official programme concluded with a live sand art performance by Ms Stephanie Stacey Lee.

Sand art is a live art performance whereby the artist creates a series of images using sand, achieved by applying sand to a surface and then drawing lines and figures in the sand with the artist’s hands.

Currently a highly acclaimed international performing sand artist, Stacey has performed for many well-known companies such as Singapore Tourism Board, PSA International, HUTTONS, IWC, CAPITAL LAND, PHILIPS, NTUC, National Health Group, DBS, The Association of Banks Singapore and Singapore Manufacturer’s Federation (SMF).

Stacey’s sand art performance told a story from a child’s perspective of how various stakeholders had worked together to build resilience in her recovery from her parents’ marital breakdown. It was called “Princess Jane and the Patch Kingdom”. The performance resonated with all those present as a reminder of how their work can help minimize any negative effects of a divorce to a child’s life and help the child transition in a positive manner.

The appreciation ended with the various stakeholders and partners engaging with each other and obtaining a better appreciation of the work that we do in the family justice eco-system.

Live Sand Art Performances by Stacey

Invited guests at the appreciation cocktail.

4

CELEBRATING THE STATE COURTS BUILDING’S 40TH ANNIVERSARY

On 15 September 2015, the State Courts celebrated a significant milestone in their history, as their iconic building at 1 Havelock Square turned 40. The occasion marked four decades of achievements by the State Courts, formerly known as the Subordinate Courts, in delivering justice to the people of Singapore effectively and accessibly in a single building.

The State Courts Building centralised the delivery of justice by bringing together various courts, which prior to 15 September 1975, had been operating at different locations, such as Empress Place, Hong Lim Green and Outram Road. Over time, the Building became an iconic landmark symbolising the State Courts’ integral role at the heart of justice.

In a celebration of the State Courts’ past, present and future, the event was attended by about 300 guests. Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, Presiding Judge of the State Courts, officiated the celebrations, which was attended by the Honourable Attorney-General V K Rajah SC, the Honourable Judge of Appeal Justice Andrew Phang, and Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the Supreme Court, as well as former Senior District Judges Mr Michael Khoo SC and Mr Errol Foenander, former Registrars, Judges and staff of the State Courts. Mr Sonny Chan and Mr Lee Kut Cheung, the key personnel involved in the design and construction of the State Courts Building were also at the event.

In a video message screened during the celebrations, The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who was overseas and unable to join the celebrations, said:

“I am grateful to the judges, the judicial officers and the staff of the State Courts for the immense contribution they have each made in helping us to deliver a system of justice that is fair, accessible and affordable. For the last 40 years, they have done their work in this Building and it has become a landmark in Singapore, and achieved conservation status.”

The celebrations included a sharing by Mr Francis Remedios, Registrar of the Subordinate Courts in 1975.

5

Mr Francis Remedios, former Registrar of the then Subordinate Courts shared with us his fond memories of 1975 and the big move to this Building. He found this building to be “opulent” when compared with the old colonial courthouses and that they had to adjust to the spacious surroundings. While there were insufficient Judges to occupy all the courtrooms then, the State Courts have over the years, increased the number of courtrooms and hearing chambers. This only goes to show how the Courts have progressed over the past 40 years.

During the event, the guests were treated to special performances by the District Judges. DJ Wong Li Tein sang a moving “Court of Honour”, an original composition. This was followed by the choir of District Judges singing the State Courts Anthem. Composed specially for the occasion by the members of the choir, the lyrics are especially meaningful as they serve as a poignant reminder what State Courts set out to do.

Subordinate Courts Judges of 1975 and retired District Judges attended the celebrations.

Retired Court Administrators present at the event.

6

HAVELOCK SQUARE OFFSITE CORPORATE RETREAT

This year’s Havelock Square Offsite (H2O), “Charting Our Future Together”, was held at the National Service Resort Country Club on 24 July 2015.

Participants of the Havelock Square Offsite (H2O) at National Service Resort Country Club on 24 July 2015.

This theme for the annual corporate retreat was chosen to follow through from the Scenario Planning exercise embarked on by State Courts in September 2014. At H20, about 100 Judges and senior court administrators took the opportunity to reflect over and discuss the two scenarios which depicted the potential challenges that may face the State Courts in the not too distant future. The participants deliberated on how the State Courts could respond to the two scenarios developed with the assistance of the Strategic Planning Office under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). They also discussed possible divisional initiatives and opportunities to bring the State Courts to greater heights as an organisation.

H2O was well received with 100 percent of the post event survey respondents indicating that they were satisfied or strongly satisfied and they were looking forward to next year’s session. The corporate retreat is a key component of the strategic planning cycle for the State Courts to prepare for the upcoming Annual Workplan to be held in March 2016.

7

JUDICIAL GOVERNANCE PROGRAMME 2015The Judicial Governance Programme (JGP) 2015 was jointly organised by the State Courts and the Civil Service College (CSC) from 27 to 31 July 2015. Conducted by senior judges and court administrators from the State Courts, the programme included interactive sessions in a classroom-setting to promote a collegial environment for learning and sharing. There were 27 participants comprising judges, court administrators and officials from 15 jurisdictions in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. The participants visited key stakeholders, including the Supreme Court, Singapore Academy of Law, Singapore Judicial College and the Law Society.

“The programme was very helpful for me. I will try to introduce the e-filing system in my country. Good days we found in Singapore”

– Justice Obaidul Hassan, Supreme Court of Bangladesh

“Very useful programme.” – The Honorable the Chief Justice Bart

Magunda Katureebe of Uganda

“Personally, I enjoyed my time in Singapore. The programme was an eye opener and very educative. I found comfort in the fact that we have also implemented some of the systems you put in place to turn around your Courts, and as such, we are on course to achieving world class justice. The programme therefore also served to reassure us that obstacles are surmountable.A special thank you for your warm hospitality, and for sharing the memories.”

– Mrs Faith Mushure, Registrar, Labour Court of Zimbabwe

Judicial Commissioner See Kee Oon, Presiding Judge of the State Courts, (1st row, 1st from right) and Deputy Presiding Judge and Registrar Ms Jennifer Marie (1st row, 2nd from left) with the participants of the JGP.

Over the course of the programme, the State Courts shared about Singapore’s experience, including topics such as leadership and change, and the State Courts’ innovations in processes and procedures. There were vibrant discussions and sharing from the participants on their countries’ different experiences in judicial reforms.

The response to the JGP was very positive and the organisers look forward to maintaining bonds of friendship and collaboration with the participants.

8

TRI-COURT TRAINING FOR THE MEDIA

The Tri-court media training programme were organised by Supreme Court on 21 October and 17 November 2015 for half a day each. More than 40 reporters from Singapore Press Holdings Ltd and MediaCorp Pte Ltd attended the programme.

Specially designed for new court beat and non-court beat reporters, the sessions covered topics on court structure, criminal, civil, family and youth proceedings, court reporting processes and court etiquette. Representatives from the Supreme Court, the State Courts and the Family Justice Courts took turns to brief the reporters on the various topics.

The development of a media training programme came about based on feedback received from the media. They had shared about the challenges they faced navigating the judicial landscape. Hence the training is targeted at new reporters and non-court beat reporters who will likely be unfamiliar with the court proceedings and court reporting, so that they can better appreciate how things are carried out in the judiciary.

9

“Judiciary of the Future”

International Conference on Court Excellence

28 - 29 January 2016

Fullerton Hotel, Singapore

The State Courts will be organising an International Conference on Court Excellence on 28 and 29 January 2016, at the Fullerton Hotel, Singapore. The theme of the Conference is “Judiciary of the Future”.

As we advance into the first quarter of the 21st century, judiciaries worldwide are preparing themselves to meet the opportunities and challenges that are being presented to them. The

Conference will bring together judicial officers, court administrators, policy makers, and experts from related fields to share perspectives on the latest trends and developments in court administration,

and expound the possibilities that judiciaries may face in the future.

For more information about the Conference, please email statecourts_conference@statecourts.gov.sg.

The judiciary also took the opportunity to stress to the media the importance of portraying a balanced reporting in accordance to the due process of the law. The media as one of the judiciary’s stakeholders play an important role in informing and educating the general public on the rule of law via the cases they report.

At the end of each of the sessions, the feedback received indicated that the training programme was well received. Most of the reporters who attended the programme agreed the sessions were useful and well-organised and felt that the most useful topic covered was the Court Reporting Procedures and Proceedings by the various Courts.

10

THE 3RD FAMILY JUSTICE PRACTICE FORUM: “A CHILD’S BEST INTEREST WITHIN PARENTAL CONFLICT”

The 3rd Family Justice Practice Forum took place on 1 October 2015 at the Supreme Court. Mr Chan Heng Kee, Permanent Secretary (PS) of the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) delivered the opening remarks. PS Chan elaborated on a recent survey on divorce carried out by MSF. The increase in number of divorces over the years and changing family structures has necessitated new ways to help families impacted by divorce. Intervention should be carried out as

early as possible and at the community level. Invoking the law must not be the first option to address family disputes and should always remain the last resort. PS Chan went on to share on the new support systems and programmes by MSF to better help these families. These include the launch of Social Service Net, a sector wide case management system, the establishment of specialized agencies dealing with specific issues such as divorce, family violence etc. PS Chan also spoke of the importance of putting the child’s interests at the core of any service provided to families. He highlighted the need for social services as well as the legal system to work in concert with each other so that more can be done to assuage the adverse impact of family breakups on children and youth.

The plenary session for the afternoon was delivered by Professor Jennifer McIntosh, a Clinical Psychologist and Researcher from Australia. Professor McIntosh is a developmental specialist with years of experience working with children. She has also done extensive work with the Family Court of Australia both in research and in helping shape the legal system work toward a child-centric approach. Professor McIntosh shared with the audience the latest research on the impact of high conflict separation and divorce on children. She highlighted factors which explain differences in outcomes for children of separated

11

families. Professor McIntosh also expressed much interest in the use of simple interventions targeted at parents at the appropriate times so as to alter the resultant pathway of their children in terms of their emotional and social health. The session concluded with a message for all involved in this work to assist in the recovery of each parent, of parenting, of co-parenting and of the child.

The plenary session was followed by responses from the Honourable Judicial Commissioner (JC) Debbie Ong, Mr Lee Kim Hua, Senior Director (Rehabilitation and Protection Group), MSF and Mr Yap Teong Liang, Chairperson, Family Law Practitioner Committee, Appointed Child Representative. JC Debbie Ong spoke of how the welfare of the child is of paramount importance, and how this simple legal principle should be the guiding light in our work with families. This is opposed to a rights-based approach where lobbyists fight for the rights of individual groups and in the process, relegate the welfare of children. Mr Lee Kim Hua shared about efforts on the part of MSF to step up on research so as to understand family conflicts in the local context and hence tailor better support structures and intervention for these families. Finally, Mr Yap Teong Liang raised concerns as to how lawyers can assimilate social science research outcomes with family law and better help their clients. While research has its importance and value, how can one apply it and use it effectively?

Much information was shared at the Forum and the speakers had raised many thought-provoking issues and questions. Whilst it would have been exciting to keep this exchange of ideas going, time was not on our side. Regardless, the 3rd Family Justice Practice Forum has definitely given everyone much fodder for thought.

12

The Youth Courts, together with the Counselling & Psychological Services (CAPS) team organised three engagement sessions with the Ministry of Education (MOE) this year. The first session was conducted on 28 April 2015 for School Counsellors and School Social Workers. Discipline Masters, Heads of Departments for Pupil Management and Year Heads attended the second session which was held on 14

MOE ENGAGEMENT PROGRAMME 2015

August, while the last session on 27 October was conducted for Principals and Vice Principals.

The objective of the Programme was to create more awareness among key school personnel on Juvenile Justice which may have an impact on students and their families. It created a better understanding of the court processes for Youth Arrest Cases as well Beyond Parent Control (BPC) and Care & Protection Order (CPO) cases. The case study and activity they had, provided an opportunity for them to understand the profile of cases handled by the Youth Courts as well as the factors that are considered before a court order is made. The sessions provided them with the necessary information to manage and support youths in their school who may be on probation or on a BPC or CPO.

Based on feedback from previous sessions in 2014, the sessions also covered court processes for divorce and custody matters as well as for Personal Protection Orders (PPO). The information covered for this area focussed on helping school personnel understand how parents’ divorce , custody and access disputes as well as applications for PPO may affect the students and what kind of support schools can provide those who have difficulties coping with their parents’ divorce or those who witness or experience family violence.

The feedback from these sessions was very positive and the participants felt that they gained a fresh perspective. The participants also found the observation segment of youth court proceedings very useful as it was an ‘eye-opener’ for them. They felt that the information and the interactive discussion on the case studies provided them with a better understanding of the youths and their families involved in court processes and was useful in helping participants to plan and provide more holistic interventions in the school setting. As such there are plans to continue with similar engagement sessions not only with MOE but for other stakeholders who work closely with the Family Justice Courts.

13

EXTENSION OF THE PRIMARY JUSTICE PROJECT TO CRIMINAL MATTERS

Accused persons who are not represented by counsel will often be at a loss and they may have many unresolved needs for information, advice, and support. … [T]he accessibility of our justice system is of visceral concern to our citizens and we must keep this at the forefront of any efforts to design suitable legal frameworks and processes. (The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Opening of Legal Year 2015)

The Primary Justice Project or PJP, an initiative that encourages the public to explore amicable resolution of disputes before trial in civil claims and matrimonial matters, will be extended to certain aspects of criminal matters as part of a pilot project to be launched in the fourth quarter of 2015.

Presently, criminal cases that are before the State Courts may be subject to the criminal case management system (CCMS) or criminal case resolution (CCR), both of which are meant to facilitate the expeditious but fair disposal of criminal matters prior to trial.

The CCMS involves a without-prejudice meeting between the prosecutors and an accused person’s defence counsel to explore the key issues in dispute or engage in plea bargaining. If the matter is not resolved at this juncture, the matter may proceed to the CCR process whereby a senior district judge will sit as a neutral mediator with the prosecutors and the accused person’s defence counsel with a view to facilitating a mutual understanding of disputed issues in the case and, where appropriate, give an indication of sentence upon conviction.

Notwithstanding the clear benefits of the CCMS and CCR, they are only opened to accused persons who are represented by defence counsel. Unfortunately, a significant number of accused persons are not represented by defence counsel primarily due to impecuniosity, amongst other reasons. As a result, these accused persons may be prejudiced in the conduct of their cases as they do not have the benefit of adequate information or legal advice to weigh the factors in favour of claiming trial or pleading guilty.

Pursuant to the pilot project, an accused person who does not qualify for the Criminal Legal Assistance Scheme (CLAS) or enhanced CLAS but is unable to afford the usual fees charged by lawyers may, subject to a more liberal means test than fees charged by CLAS, engage the service of a participating defence counsel at a flat discounted fee for a minimum number of hours of professional work. Notably, the pilot project is not restricted to only certain categories of criminal offences, unlike CLAS. The flat discounted fee applies even if the defence counsel is a highly experienced or senior lawyer.

The key purpose of the engagement under the pilot project is for the accused person to participate in the CCMS and CCR through his defence counsel, which will also entail at least one round of representations to the prosecutors. At the end of the preliminary engagement, the accused person may decide whether to continue with the same defence counsel at fees to be agreed for the purpose of trial or pleading guilty.

It is hoped that the extension of the PJP to criminal matters under the pilot scheme will lead to more expeditious yet fair disposal of cases without prejudicing the rights of accused persons to make informed decisions on how to conduct their cases.

14

ROLL-OUT OF THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE CENTRE

After an accused person is charged in court, he may elect to plead guilty or claim trial. If he elects to plead guilty, the judge may take his plea forthwith or transfer his case to another court for the plea to be taken.

However, if the accused person wishes to claim trial, or, if the prosecutor or the accused person is not ready to proceed with the case, the judge will transfer the case to another court for a pre-trial conference (PTC). Some examples of the latter situation are when further investigations are ongoing, the accused person needs time to make representations to the prosecutor or the accused person has sought legal aid and is awaiting a reply.

A PTC takes place between a judge, a prosecutor and the accused person or his defence counsel in the privacy of the judge’s chambers. The main purpose of the PTC is case management. It is a judge-led process whereby:

• the judge takes stock of the status and peculiar features of the case;• the prosecutor and the defence inform the judge of their readiness for trial (or for the accused

person to plead guilty, as the case may be);• the prosecutor and the defence update the judge on the status of their bilateral discussions of

issues of contention (which may take place during a criminal case management conference); and • the judge fixes the date(s) for the trial (or for the accused person to plead guilty, as the case may

be).

Presently, PTCs take place in the judge’s chambers in Courts 17 and 18 depending on the nature of the case and whether the accused person is in remand. Courts 17 and 18 are regular full-sized trial courts in different locations with judges’ chambers. However, the main courtrooms are not used for the PTCs.

There are currently separate and manual systems of registration and queue in each court. Defence counsels who are in court for multiple matters sometimes end up missing their turns or spending a lot of time waiting for their turns.

All these will change by the end of the fourth quarter of 2015 when the CJD rolls out the PTC Centre.

As the name implies, the PTC Centre is a centralised location where all PTCs will take place. There will be three dedicated PTC chambers that will increase PTC capacity by 50% while collectively taking up less room than Courts 17 and 18 combined. Consequently, Courts 17 and 18 will be freed up for trials and other open-court hearings.

Additionally, there will be a proper service counter for parties who require assistance and the introduction of the centralised queue management system (CQMS) which should hopefully entail a more equitable and stress-free experience for parties who are waiting for their turns. For defence counsels who are in court for multiple PTCs, they will have all their PTCs dealt with at the PTC Centre without having to shuttle between Courts 17 and 18. They will also be able to plan other matters in the State Courts since the CQMS will allow them to predict with greater certainty the time at which their PTC will take place.

15

THE JUDICIAL DUTY TO GIVE REASONS REVISITEDIntroduction

1. When are judges required to give reasons for their decisions? This is a question which litigants would be interested in. In the 2012 decision of Thong Ah Fat v Public Prosecutor [2012] 1 SLR 676 (Thong Ah Fat), the Court of Appeal (CA) articulated the rationale behind the imposition of the duty as :

(a) To ensure that the court applies its mind to parties’ submissions, leading to sounder decisions;

(b) To ensure that parties leave the arena knowing why they had won or lost the case;

(c) To ensure that the appellate court has the proper material to understand, and do justice to, the decisions taken at first instance; and

(d) To ensure judicial accountability to society, thereby serving the ends of open justice.

2. This issue was revisited by the CA in Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore [2015] SGCA 41 (Ten Leu Jiun) in the context of interlocutory applications taken out in civil proceedings. Interlocutory applications are taken out by parties prior to trial and in this case, the purpose is to obtain documents from the opposing party.

Brief facts in Ten Leu Jiun

3. The appellant, Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie, was a Masters of Arts (Architecture) candidate at the National University of Singapore (NUS). Disagreements between the appellant and her supervisor arose sometime in 2005, culminating in the termination of the appellant’s candidature by NUS on 4 September 2006. The appellant commenced proceedings on 8 August 2012 against NUS claiming, amongst other things, wrongful termination of her candidature.

4. This appeal arises out of an unsuccessful discovery application filed by the appellant in the course of the proceedings. The appellant’s discovery application was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar at first instance, by the Judge in the following Registrar’s Appeal and by the same Judge in an application for leave to appeal. Requests were made by the appellant for the Judge’s grounds of decision in respect of both the Registrar’s Appeal and the application for leave to appeal. Whilst copies of the Judge’s Notes of Evidence for both hearings were furnished, the Judge took the view that Grounds of Decision need not be provided.

5. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a further application for written Grounds of Decision to be provided “in respect of interlocutory hearings before this Honourable Court”. The appellant’s application was dismissed at first instance. The Judge held, amongst other things, that the failure to provide the appellant with written grounds did not violate Article 12 of the Constitution (right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law) and that the discovery application involved largely routine matters that did not involve unique points of law.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling

6. The appeal was dismissed by the CA. First, the CA held that there was no basis for the appellant to contend that all court decisions must lead to written records containing sufficient reasons. Second, the CA held that discovery applications are the “prime examples” of “routine interlocutory applications” where the judicial duty to provide reasons do not apply. Third, on the facts, the CA was satisfied that in respect of the discovery application, the Assistant Registrar had furnished reasons for his decision and that the Judge, in affirming the Assistant Registrar’s decision in the Registrar’s Appeal, had accepted and adopted the reasons of the Assistant Registrar.

(to continue at bottom of page 18)

16

SIMPLIFIED PROCESS FOR MAGISTRATE’S COURT CASES: NEARLY ONE YEAR ON

In the June 2015 Issue of the Havelock Square News, we wrote about the new simplified process for Magistrate’s Court cases. To re-cap, with effect from 1 November 2014, cases filed in the Magistrate’s Court are subject to the simplified process under the new Order 108 of the Rules of Court. Key features of the new process are upfront disclosure of documents, early and robust case management, curtailed interlocutory applications and simplified trials.

In respect of early and robust case management, we wrote about the case management conference (CMC) convened at an early stage of a case. At the CMC, the court discusses the case with the parties and assists parties to narrow the issues in dispute. The Civil Justice Division has been conducting CMCs four days a week since January 2015. In the months that ensued, there has been a fair amount of buy-in to the new process by parties and their counsel. Counsel, in compliance with the practice directions, would have usually filed the list of issues and list of witnesses before the CMC. Most would have exchanged offers. Some parties would also attend the CMC with their counsel so that they could be involved in the case management personally.

A large number of Magistrate’s Court cases have been resolved at the CMC stage. At the time of writing, only one case has been set down for trial, although directions for trial have been given in about a dozen cases. The disposal rate at CMC has been encouraging and it suggests that parties realize the advantages of settling small value cases quickly. We also have two cases of parties applying by consent for a District Court Suit to come under Order 108.

The Civil Justice Division would like to see parties getting more value out of the CMC process. In order for parties and counsel to benefit fully from the CMCs, it is important that they note the following pointers:

a. At the earliest opportunity and before the 1st CMC, start negotiations for possible resolution.b. Seven days before the 1st CMC, file the list of issues and the list of witnesses (Form 3) and

the ADR form (Form 7).c. Seven days before the 1st CMC, exchange proposals (Form 2).d. Prepare for CMC by taking instructions on possible resolution of the case.e. Bring paper copies of key documents to the CMC.f. At the CMC assist the court in narrowing issues and arriving at possible resolution.g. Do not expect that the CMC will be adjourned just because parties consent. Prior approval of

the court must be obtained before any adjournment, which will be given only for good reasons. Parties should be punctual so that they would have the benefit of the full hour allotted for each CMC session.

The Civil Justice Division will continue to review the effectiveness of the new simplified process for Magistrate’s Court cases and welcomes feedback from court users. The process will be refined and improved as needed to further enhance the administration of civil justice in the State Courts.

17

The Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 (CDRA) came into operation on 1 October 2015.

The CDRA creates a new statutory tort of interfering with the enjoyment or use of places of residence. The underlying principle is that a person should not cause unreasonable interference with his neighbour’s enjoyment or use of that neighbour’s place of residence.

The CDRA also establishes the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunals as part of the State Courts to hear cases under the CDRA.

Neighbours should consider starting CDRA proceedings in the Tribunals only after all self-help options and means of resolving the dispute have been tried and have not been effective:

a. Talking to your neighbour b. Seeking help from grassroots leaders through the nearest Community Clubc. Seeking help from the relevant government agency which has oversight over the issue,

such as the Town Council, Housing & Development Board (HDB), National Environment Agency (NEA), Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) etc.

d. Initiating voluntary mediation at the Community Mediation Centre (CMC)

Even where CDRA proceedings have been started, the Tribunal Judge may order both parties to attend compulsory mediation or counselling, before allowing the case to proceed further.

At the end of the proceedings, the Tribunal Judge may make one or more of the following orders:

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY DISPUTES RESOLUTION ACT 2015

Damages : An order for your neighbour to pay you a sum of money (not more than $20,000)

Injunction : An order for your neighbour to stop doing something

Specific performance : An order for your neighbour to do something

Apology : An order for your neighbour to apologise to you

18

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY DISPUTES RESOLUTION ACT 2015

Examples of unreasonable interference: The Tribunal Judge will consider:

a. Causing excessive noise, smell, smoke, light or vibration

b. Littering at or in the vicinity of your place of residence

c. Obstructing your place of residence

d. Interfering with your movable property

e. Conducting surveillance on you or your place of residence, where the surveillance is done at or in the vicinity of your place of residence

f. Trespassing on your place of residence

g. Allowing your neighbour’s animal to trespass on your place of residence, to cause excessive noise or smell, or to defecate or urinate at or in the vicinity of your place of residence

a. Whether the claim has been made out against your neighbour on a balance of probabilities; and

b. Whether it is just and equitable for the court order to be made:

i. The impact of the order on your neighbour;

ii. The impact of the order on any person who resides in your neighbour’s place of residence at the time the order is made;

iii. The impact of the order on any other person who can reasonably be expected to be affected by the order;

iv. The ordinary instances of daily living that can be expected to be tolerated by reasonable persons living in Singapore; and

v. Any other matters as the court deems fit.

For more information on:

• Managing conflicts and mediation at CMC, please visit the CMC website at https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/content/cmc/en.html

• Starting proceedings under the CDRA, please visit the State Courts website at https://www.statecourts.gov.sg/Pages/default.aspx

Conclusion

7. Whilst there is a general judicial duty to give reasons, there are exceptions to this duty, particularly where the matter in question involves “routine interlocutory applications” with a “procedural focus”. Although the CA did not elaborate on or give examples of the types of applications that would fall within the exception of “routine interlocutory applications” with a “procedural focus”, it may be surmised that applications for discovery (such as in Ten Leu Jiun), further and better particulars and interrogatories are likely to fall within this exception.

8. Even in situations where the duty arises, it is sufficient for the court to give oral reasons. Generally, there should not be any expectation that the court will issue written reasons or grounds of decision.

(continue from page 15)

Every year, Singaporeans celebrate National Day with great splendour, joy and respect for our country. As a nation, we celebrate unanimously regardless of race, language or religion.

In the State Courts, it is also a day to remember the underprivileged who need our care and concern, a message that resonates through every corridor of the State Courts.

Our SG 50 Charity Bazaar to raise funds for the AutismAutism Association Singapore was jointly organised by the Staff Welfare Committee, Corporate Social Responsibility Committee and the Staff Benefits Committee on 14th August 2015. A total of 11 stalls were managed by the Corporate Services Division (CSD), Criminal Justice Division, Civil Justice Division, Community Justice & Tribunals Division (CJTD), State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution (CJTD), State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution (SCCDR) and Strategic Planning & Technology Division (SPTD). These stalls operated from 12 to 3pm on Level 1 and the Atrium.

On the eventful day, staff enthusiastically started decorating their stalls as early as 10am and displayed a variety of sale items. CSD sold mouth-watering biryani, spicy nasi lemak, murukku, crunchy nuts, swiss rolls, fruits, car decals, handmade soaps and handcreams. From the Criminal Justice Division came a novel idea - a beautifully decorated photo booth, in addition to the tasty satay goreng and sardine rolls.booth, in addition to the tasty satay goreng and sardine rolls. The photo booth attracted a large crowd who were eagerly waiting for their turns. The Civil Justice Division sold chilli-filled nasi sambal goreng lunch sets, coupled with doughnuts and chocolate hampers. Fish head curry with naan and their famous fizzy mocktails were sold by CJTD. A variety of colourful soft toys and household items flooded SCCDR’s flea market. Unbelievable but true – for its part, SPTD came up with innovative ideas of cleaning staff’s workstations and fortune-telling to raise funds. The atmosphere was filled with joy, laughter and a sense of fulfilment.laughter and a sense of fulfilment.

The hard work and dedication of the staff paid off in the form of a collection of a whopping $28,800. PJSC Mr See Kee Oon presented the cheque to Ms Loh Wai Mooi, Treasurer of the Autism Association Singapore at the celebration of the 40th Anniversary of the State Courts Building on 15 September 2015.

Our commitment to contribute towards meeting the needs of the underprivileged will prevail in the years to come concerted years to come. We are proud of our efforts and we will stay firm to contribute our best towards society.

12

1 Havelock Square, Singapore 059724Enquiries: 1800 JUSTICE (1800 5878423)Fax: (65) 6435 5913Website: www.statecourts.gov.sg

For comments or feedback, please email:contact@StateCourts.gov.sg

https://www.facebook.com/StateCourtsSingapore

3 Havelock Square, Singapore 059725Enquiries: (65) 6435 5110Fax: (65) 6435 5112Website: www.familyjusticecourts.gov.sg

For comments or feedback, please email:FJCourts_QSM@fjcourts.gov.sg

Court users now have more convenient ways to pay their court fine instalments.

Since 29 January 2015, court users can make payment at any AXS kiosk located island-wide, before 10 pm on the day the payment is due.

Two more payment platforms were introduced on 14 April 2015. Court users can now pay their court fine instalments through the AXS e-Station website on the Internet, or using the AXS m-Station mobile application on their smartphones.

Pay court fine instalments with AXS

Pay court fine instalments at AXS kiosks

Select State Courts Fine Instalmentspayment option

Read the terms and conditions

Select instalment(s) to pay*

Confirm payment details and proceedwith payment procedures

Transaction completed

* AXS kiosk and bank daily transaction limits apply

Enter Defendant ID and Payment Reference

With a new payment mode via AXS, I can avoid late payment. Thanks for implementing this service.

Mr Mohd Sufi Court user

Paying fine instalments via AXS is a good idea. I no longer need to take leave or time off to make payment. I will also not miss my deadline even if it falls on a Sunday.

Ms RohayaCourt user

WE HAVE MOVED!

Serving our community better together!

Some services and registries of the Family Justice Courts (FJC) were relocated to

5 Maxwell Road, #04-00, Tower Block, MND Complex since 6 October 2015.

WHY THE MOVE?FJC seeks to help troubled families resolve their disputes holistically and with less acrimony. As FJC intensify their efforts to better serve court users, the space in the Havelock premises is no longer sufficent to handle the work.

There is also a need to consolidate mediation and counselling services for divorce related matters.

WHAT REMAINS AT 3 HAVELOCK SQUARE?• Family Courts• Youth Courts• Protection Order Services• Maintenance Registry• Maintenance Mediation Chambers• Divorce Registry• Counselling services supporting family violence

applications and Youth Court Cases

WHAT WAS RELOCATED?• Mental Capacity• Adoption• Probate and Administraation• Child Focus Resolution Centre (CFRC)• Family Resolution Chambers (FRC)

Family Dispute Resolution Registry at MND Complex.