Speech during 2nd Reading of the Small Claims Tribunal (Amendment) Bill on 9 July 2018 by MP Patrick Tay

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. I have been calling for a review of the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunals since 2013 so that more people can have access to economical and expedient orders and judgment in their contractual claims. Raising of the monetary limits of SCTs’ jurisdiction will be a boon for claimants and freelance workers alike as I know of professional freelancers who take their clients to task at the SCTs for non-payment of work done under their contracts for service. The revision is also due as the last review of the SCTs’ jurisdiction was conducted in 1997 and adjustments ought to be made to factor in inflation and rising costs of living. 

I am also supportive of the extension of the limitation period for cases to be brought to the SCTs as members of the public who are not familiar with legal processes may not consider legal recourse until the dispute has remained unresolved for some time. It is thus reasonable to extend the limitation period from 1 year to 2 years to avail these claimants the opportunity to bring their small claims to the SCTs. 

At the inception of the SCTs in 1984, the then Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs Prof S Jayakumar said that the objectives of the SCTs was to provide “a speedy and inexpensive machinery to handle small claims arising from disputes between consumers and suppliers”. As articulated by Mr Ong Chin Heng in his paper on “Rethinking Tribunals Justice – Serving the Community” in 2011, then a Senior Referee of the SCTs, the raison d’etre of the SCTs must be to serve the community and “the processes, programmes and procedures [of the SCTs] must be user-friendly and community-oriented so that end users are able to obtain the best substantive as well as procedural justice available ”. I believe that the SCTs’ raison d’etre must remain the same today.

The cornerstone of SCTs is that the proceedings before the tribunals are to be conducted in an informal manner. Whilst the adoption of judge-led proceedings through this Bill would help parties to focus on key issues arising from the claim, thereby saving them time and costs, there is a need to ensure that the SCT proceedings are conducted in a manner which still retain its informal nature. Care must be taken to reduce the use of jargon and legalese and maintain the use of simplified procedures so that laypersons are not intimidated when presenting their cases at the SCTs. 

In 2017, the SCTs adopted an electronic case filing and management system (Community Justice Tribunals System) in place of the manual filing system. To assist claimants in preparing to file their SCT claim, there is a pre-filing assessment tool available on the State Courts’ website for their use. I tried completing the pre-filing assessment form and I was asked these questions to which a “YES” or “NO” response was required:

“Are you claiming against the correct party with whom you have a contractual obligation?” 

“Does your claim relate to a contract for services received/rendered?”

“Was the claim filed more than 1 year after the due date of performance?”

“Is contract evidenced in writing?”

“Has the date for service to be rendered lapsed?”

“Are you seeking a Money Order or a Work Order?”

I would imagine that an average layperson would find some of these questions challenging to provide a “YES” or “NO” answer to. There is a need to simplify the language further or to provide a glossary for users’ easy reference. 

After completing the pre-filing assessment, I was given a list of notifications with instructions to read them before I proceed to file my claim: 

“Please consider how you are going to support your case at SCT, by showing evidence or supporting documents.

You should engage the other party to discuss remedial works or other acceptable solutions before filing your claim at SCT.

You must show evidence or supporting documents to show the breach by the other party.

You should wait till the contracted service performance date is due before filing your claim.

You cannot bring a claim against a person or entity who is out of jurisdiction (outside Singapore).

SCT cannot hear the matter if service has not been performed, ie. you have not brought the claim to the attention of the other party personally.”

Would these notifications deter the ordinary man on the street from filing his claim in the SCT? While we want to expedite the claim processes, we must be careful to ensure that the SCTs do not become too intimidating for claimants to access. 

One other area of concern which I hear from the ground is the issue of enforcement of orders. Take for example, a case where the claimant has taken time and effort to seek recourse at the SCT, he has successfully completed the process of pursuing his claim and obtained an order for the counterparty to pay him the sum of monies claimed but the counterparty refuses to pay up. Those who are unfamiliar with the legal system would be surprised or dismayed to find out that they would have to take additional steps and expend more time and costs to enforce the order with no guaranteed outcomes.  

In a survey conducted in the United Kingdom in 2010 , it was found that 1 in 4 small claims court users who won their case only received part of the payment they were awarded, while 6% end up receiving nothing. According to the State Courts Annual Report 2017, 9,700 cases came before the SCTs in 2017 . Of these cases, how many orders were fully satisfied? For those which were not satisfied, how many of the orders were enforced? Does the success rate of enforcement of SCT orders differ from that of judgments made by the courts? 

In the same way that processes to access the SCTs have to be simplified so that end users are able to obtain the best substantive as well as procedural justice available, the process to seek enforcement of SCT judgments should also be simplified and made more accessible so that enforcement arrangements do not impact the efficiency of the small claims procedure. To mitigate this issue, SCTs can do more by better informing claimants of the potential problems of enforcement, incorporate processes to filter out claims which should not be pursued because of the poor chance of collection and explore ways to better ensure efficient enforcement of its orders given the nature of the SCTs.

With that, I support the Bill. Thank you.