Speech by Mr. Louis Ng Kok Kwang, MP for Nee Soon GRC at the Second Reading of the Small Claims Tribunals (Amendment) Bill [Bill No. 23/2018]
Introduction
Sir, I welcome this update to the Small Claims Tribunals which provides a time and cost-efficient dispute resolution channel for many.
In particular, I welcome the move to carve out greater space for mediation for the resolution of small claims. This recognises the value of collaborative conflict resolution that preserves relationships even where the claim amounts are relatively low.
I have three points for clarification.
Power of Registrar to refer a claim for mediation
As mentioned, I am very supportive of the Registrar now having the power to refer a claim for mediation under Section 18A.
There is a presumption of alternative dispute resolution for all civil cases under the State Court Practice Directions.
The Court will automatically refer all cases to the most appropriate mode of alternative dispute resolution, including mediation, unless parties opt out. Will there be a similarly strong effort to channel most SCT claims to mediation first?
For claimants in civil cases, solicitors are required by the Legal Profession Professional Conduct Rules to evaluate the use of ADR processes in an appropriate case.
Further, claimants are required to fill out an ADR Form which provides them with information on ADR processes to guide their decisions.
Given that SCT claimants will be acting in person, often without the benefit of legal advice, will similar information be provided to SCT claimants?
Power of Registrar to order costs
Next, a Registrar now has the power to order a party to pay costs under Section 35(1)(a). Can the Minister clarify the situations under which a party may be ordered to pay costs?
Under Order 59 Rule 5(c) of the Rules of Court, the Court may take into account parties’ conduct in resolving the matter by mediation in ordering adverse costs.
A successful defendant may be deprived of a portion of costs they would otherwise have been awarded if found to have unreasonably refused to engage in mediation.
Would the refusal to participate in mediation or clear bad faith participation in mediation be a ground for or be taken into consideration when ordering costs?
Can the Minister also clarify what sums a party might be ordered to pay as costs? Given the limits on the sums that can be claimed at the SCT, would it be appropriate to limit the amount of costs that can be ordered against a claimant at the SCT?
Costs of enforcing an SCT money order
Next, in a written response to a 2017 parliamentary question, Minister Shanmugam estimated the total cost of enforcing a money order of the SCT to be between $400 to $600.
This is about a quarter of the claim limit of $2,000 before the SCT. Most claims will fall below $2,000. For the average claimant, enforcement of a money order does not seem cost efficient.
Therefore, are there plans to relook the costs involved in enforcing a SCT money order to make it more cost efficient for the average SCT claimant?
Given the efforts to align the Small Claims regime with the Employment Claims regime, would the Ministry also consider carving out separate enforcement processes for low-value claims?
Conclusion
Sir, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.