SUBORDINATE COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Column: 1238

SUBORDINATE COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Senior Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Introduction

Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Subordinate Courts Act to rationalise the law relating to transfer of civil cases between different courts and to give the courts greater flexibility to allow transfers in appropriate cases.

Any civil litigant has to estimate the quantum of his claim and decide on the appropriate court to begin his action. Sometimes, after commencing the action in one court, it may be necessary or desirable to transfer a case to be dealt with by a higher or lower court.

The Subordinate Courts Act currently allows the transfer of civil cases from the Magistrate's Court to the District Court only in very limited situations. The Act does not allow transfers of cases between the Magistrate's Court and the High Court, or transfers from the District Court to the Magistrate's Court.

In practice, these limitations have posed problems as there are instances where there is good reason to transfer a

Column: 1239

case to another court with lower or higher jurisdiction.

In a civil action, when the plaintiff has to commence action in either the High Court, the District Court or the Magistrate's Court, this decision is fairly straightforward, as the main factor is the value of the claim made, and filing the writ in the court with the monetary jurisdiction of the appropriate level.

For a claim not exceeding $60,000, the plaintiff will commence action in the Magistrate's Court. For a claim higher than that but not exceeding $250,000, the plaintiff will commence action in the District Court. For any claim above that, the plaintiff will commence action in the High Court.

Sir, however, difficulties arise where the plaintiff's claim hovers at the monetary jurisdictional limit of one of the Subordinate Courts, or when there are unexpected changes in the expected damages claimed or counter-claimed that may require a litigant to transfer his case after an action has been commenced in a specific court. Let me give some examples. First, the plaintiff's injuries, especially in personal injury cases, may have worsened or are of a continuing nature such that if he is to revise his claim after he has already filed his claim in a lower court and, before the case is heard, he may need to transfer his case to a court with higher jurisdiction in order to receive an award that the lower court has no power to award; second, the allowable damages might have been raised by court decisions that dealt with similar cases, after the filing of the action in a lower court; third, the amount counter-claimed by the defendant might be higher than what the lower court in which the plaintiff who commenced the action can give; or, fourth, the plaintiff might have inadvertently filed his claim in the wrong court.

Column: 1240

Sir, if the courts have limited powers to transfer cases, a plaintiff may have to discontinue his action and start afresh. This increases costs and wastes judicial time, especially if the case had proceeded to an advanced stage before the inadequacy became known. If the limitation period had expired, the plaintiff will be time-barred from restarting his action altogether. This would be unfair, particularly if the need for transfer was not due to any default or neglect on his part.

Indeed, a series of Court of Appeal and High Court decisions decided between the year 2002 and this year had highlighted deficiencies in the current system.

Consequently, the Law Reform Committee of the Singapore Academy of Law which has representation from the Judiciary, practitioners, academics and legal officers from the Legal Service, reviewed the law and made a number of recommendations to amend the Subordinate Courts Act.

MinLaw has accepted these recommendations which are encapsulated in this Bill.

The proposed amendments

Sir, this Bill will widen the existing ground for transferring civil proceedings from the Magistrate's Court to the District Court (clauses 54A and 54F).

This Bill will also widen the mechanism for transferring civil proceedings: (a) from the Subordinate Courts to the High Court (clauses 54B and 54E); (b) from the High Court to the Subordinate Courts (clause 54C); and (c) from the District Court to the Magistrate's Court (clause 54D).

The Bill also clarifies that a party intending to avail himself of reciprocal

Column: 1241

enforcement arrangements, should such be available under overseas legislation, may proceed with his claim in the High Court, notwithstanding that his claim falls within the ordinary jurisdiction of the Subordinate Courts (as found in the Explanations in the proposed new sections 54B and 54C).

Sir, as fees may vary between different courts, the Bill also addresses the issue as to which court has jurisdiction to determine whether costs should be pegged at High Court or Subordinate Courts' level in these transfer proceedings (clause 54G).

Some existing provisions made redundant by the proposed amendments will be repealed (sections 24, 37, 38, 40 and 53).

A consequential amendment will also have to be made to section 26 of the Government Proceedings Act to cater for the transfer of proceedings from one Subordinate Court to another.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Sir, these amendments will rationalise the law relating to transfer of civil cases between different courts and ensure that litigants are not denied access to justice because of procedural rules on jurisdiction. They will enable the courts to dispense substantive justice without being fettered by procedural hurdles and this, in turn, will lead to more efficient use of judicial resources.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

Column: 1242

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.00 pm .

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.40 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

Column: 1242

[

Mr Speaker in the Chair: ]