THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (AMENDMENT) BILL
As widely reported in the news, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill (Bill No. 32/2019) (the “SCJA Amendment Bill”) was tabled by the Ministry of Law and submitted for first reading on 7 October 2019. The SCJA Amendment Bill will effect numerous changes to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (the “SCJA”).
Scope of changes. A taste of the scope of changes effected by the SCJA Amendment Bill can be seen from the first paragraph of the Explanatory Statement to the SCJA Amendment Bill, which we excerpt below for ease of reference:
“This Bill seeks to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322) —
(a) to make provision for the new Appellate Division of the High Court, and the new General Division of the High Court, established by the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, including the jurisdictions and powers of the Appellate Division and the General Division;
(b) to re‑organise and restate the provisions relating to the Supreme Court and to the Court of Appeal;
(c) to make provision for the new class of permanent judges to be called the Judges of the Appellate Division;
(d) to replace references to Judges of Appeal with Justices of the Court of Appeal;
(e) to provide that leave to appeal against a decision of the General Division is generally to be obtained from the court to which the appeal is to be made;
(f) to provide that certain orders and decisions, which are currently non‑appealable, are appealable with leave;
(g) to make miscellaneous amendments; and
(h) to make drafting improvements.”
The General Division and the Appellate Division of the High Court. The key change, which has been widely reported, is that the High Court will have a General Division and an Appellate Division. We will therefore not elaborate much on this issue, save to highlight that:
(a) The Appellate Division has no criminal jurisdiction (see Clause 13 SCJA Amendment Bill);
(b) Like the current SGCA, the Appellate Division may decide certain cases without hearing oral arguments (see Clause 13 SCJA Amendment Bill);
(c) While the “general” position is that the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division is to be exercised by “3 or any greater uneven number of Judges”, certain cases may be heard or decided by a single or 2 Judges, such applications to record a consent judgment, application to adduce further evidence in proceedings before the Appellate Division, etc. (see Clause 13 SCJA Amendment Bill);
(d) The proposed new Sixth Schedule has set out categories of appeals against a decision by the General Division which are to be made to the Court of Appeal and not to the Appellate Division (see Clause 12 SCJA Amendment Bill); and
(e) The Court of Appeal has the power to transfer appeals to itself, and the power to transfer appeals to the Appellate Division (see Clause 12 SCJA Amendment Bill).
In this regard, the cases which may be decided without oral arguments are addressed in the new section 37 as well as in the new Eight Schedule, which, in summary, are:
(a) Applications to the Appellate Division (see Clause 13 SCJA Amendment Bill on the new section 37(1)(a));
(b) Appeals mentioned in paragraphs 2(e), (f), (g), (h) or (f) of the Seventh Schedule, when every party consent to the appeal being decided without hearing oral arguments (see paragraph 1(a) of the new Eight Schedule); and
(c) Appeal mentioned in paragraph 2(k) of the Seventh Schedule (see Paragraph 1(b) of the new Eight Schedule).
Non-appealable to appealable with leave. As part of the changes, certain categories of matters that were formerly non-appealable would become appealable with leave. As stated in the Explanatory Statement:
“Paragraph 1(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of the existing Fourth Schedule is deleted. The cases mentioned in those provisions are to be appealable with leave, as provided under paragraph 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Fifth Schedule, as amended by clause 23.”
For ease of reference, we set out a table below to show the changes that are proposed to be made to the Fourth Schedule of the SCJA.
Para 1
Description in the Fourth Schedule of the SCJA
Fourth Schedule of the SCJA Amendment Bill
Para 3
Fifth Schedule of the SCJA Amendment Bill
(a)
where, by any written law for the time being in force, it is expressly declared that the judgment or order of the High Court is final or that no appeal lies from the judgment or order of the High Court;
Deleted.
-
Note Clause 12 SCJA Amendment Bill introduces the following:
“No appeal in certain cases
29. In the following cases, an appeal cannot be brought against a decision of the General Division made in the exercise of its original or appellate civil jurisdiction:
(a) a case where it is expressly provided by any written law that the decision of the General Division is final or that an appeal cannot be brought against the decision of the General Division; …”
(b)
where the judgment or order is made by consent of the parties;
Not deleted.
N.A.
N.A.
(c)
where a Judge makes an order giving unconditional leave to defend any proceedings;
Deleted.
(a)
where a Judge makes an order giving unconditional leave to defend any proceedings;
(d)
where a Judge makes an order giving leave to defend any proceedings on condition that the party defending those proceedings pays into court or gives security for the sum claimed, except if the appellant is that party;
Deleted.
(b)
where a Judge makes an order giving leave to defend any proceedings on condition that the party defending those proceedings pays into court or gives security for the sum claimed, except if the appellant is that party;
(e)
where a Judge makes an order setting aside unconditionally a default judgment, regardless of how the default judgment was obtained (including whether by reason of a breach of an order of court or otherwise);
Deleted.
(c)
where a Judge makes an order setting aside unconditionally a default judgment, regardless of how the default judgment was obtained (including whether by reason of a breach of an order of court or otherwise);
(f)
where a Judge makes an order setting aside a default judgment on condition that the party against whom the judgment had been entered pays into court or gives security for the sum claimed, regardless of how the default judgment was obtained (including whether by reason of a breach of an order of court or otherwise), except if the appellant is that party;
Deleted.
(d)
where a Judge makes an order setting aside a default judgment on condition that the party against whom the judgment had been entered pays into court or gives security for the sum claimed, regardless of how the default judgment was obtained (including whether by reason of a breach of an order of court or otherwise), except if the appellant is that party;
(g)
where a Judge makes an order refusing to strike out —
(i) an action or a matter commenced by a writ of summons or by any other originating process; or
(ii) a pleading or a part of a pleading;
Deleted.
(e)
where a Judge makes an order refusing to strike out —
(i) an action or a matter commenced by a writ of summons or by any other originating process; or
(ii) a pleading or a part of a pleading;
(h)
where a Judge makes an order giving or refusing further and better particulars;
Not deleted.
N.A.
N.A.
(i)
where a Judge makes an order giving leave to amend a pleading, except if —
(i) the application for such leave is made after the expiry of any relevant period of limitation current at the date of issue of the writ of summons; and
(ii) the amendment is an amendment to correct the name of a party or to alter the capacity in which a party sues, or the effect of the amendment will be to add or substitute a new cause of action;
Not deleted.
N.A.
N.A.
(j)
where a Judge makes an order refusing security for costs;
Not deleted.
N.A.
N.A.
(k)
where a Judge makes an order giving or refusing interrogatories.
Not deleted.
N.A.
N.A.
As can be seen from the above brief comparison, the changes are substantial. We highlight in this regard that there are also changes proposed to the Fifth Schedule of the SCJA beyond those mentioned above.
For example, there is a new paragraph 3(m) providing for the situation “where a Judge at the hearing of an appeal under section 17, 29, 35 or 44 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (Act 18 of 2019) refuses to set aside the Part 3 Direction, Part 4 Direction, Declaration or Account Restriction Direction (as the case may be) against which the appeal was brought.”
Conclusion. There are many changes that are introduced via the SCJA Amendment Bill. These changes are not just procedural changes: they will have substantive effects on civil litigation. Practitioners would do well to review the SCJA Amendment Bill carefully.
Tags: Civil procedure; Supreme Court of Judicature Act; Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill
This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice; it is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking, actions based on this publication. Chancery Law Corporation is not responsible for, and does not accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance based on this publication.