The Singapore legal system is based on common law for areas such as contract, equity, trusts and tort law. Statutes have been enacted for areas such as criminal, company and family law. 

Judges apply the ratio decidendi (the operative reasons) of decisions of higher courts. Court of Appeal judgments are strictly binding on the High Court, District Court and Magistrates’ Court, whereas English and other Commonwealth decisions are persuasive but not binding. The doctrine of “horizontal stare decisis” – that is, where courts at the same level in the judicial hierarchy are bound by each other’s decisions – is not applicable. However, a court would be hesitant to depart from a line of previous decisions.

The legal system is adversarial and conducted through both written and oral advocacy.

The Singapore court system comprises the Supreme Court, State Courts and Family Justice Courts.

The Supreme Court consists of the Court of Appeal, High Court (General Division and Appellate Division) and Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC).

The Court of Appeal hears criminal appeals and prescribed categories of civil appeals from the decisions of the General Division of the High Court and is the court of final appeal. Court of Appeal hearings usually feature three judges.

The High Court exercises original and appellate jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases.

• The General Division of the High Court hears civil cases where the claim exceeds SGD250,000, probate matters if the estate exceeds SGD5 million (or if the case involves the resealing of a foreign grant), admiralty matters, insolvency matters, applications for the admission of advocates and solicitors, and family proceedings involving assets of SGD5 million or more.
• The General Division of the High Court tries criminal cases where the offences are punishable by death or with imprisonment terms exceeding ten years. The General Division of the High Court also hears points of law in special cases submitted by a District Court or Magistrates’ Court. The General Division of the High Court can reverse State Courts’ decisions, or direct a State Court to conduct a new trial.
• The Appellate Division of the High Court hears civil appeals that are not allocated to the Court of Appeal under the Sixth Schedule of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (SCJA).

The SICC is an international division of the Supreme Court with specialist local and international judges. It hears transnational commercial disputes.

The State Courts consist of the District Courts, the Magistrates’ Courts, the Coroners’ Courts, the Small Claims Tribunals and the Employment Claims Tribunals. Magistrates’ Courts may deal with civil claims of up to SGD60,000 and any criminal offence for which the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed five years or is punishable with a fine only. District Courts may deal with civil claims of up to SGD250,000 (or up to SGD500,000 for claims for road traffic accidents or personal injuries from industrial accidents) and any criminal offence for which the maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed ten years or is punishable with a fine only. The Small Claims Tribunal has a claims limit of SGD20,000, which can be raised to SGD30,000 with written consent.

The Family Justice Courts – comprising the Family Division of the High Court, the Family Courts and Youth Courts – hear the full suite of family-related cases, and probate and succession matters.

Finally, there are smaller tribunals dealing with specialised matters.

Generally, most court proceedings are open to the public. However, interlocutory applications are heard in chambers and are not open to the public. All Family Justice Court cases are also conducted in private.

A party can apply to have a private hearing where it would be in the interests of justice, public security or propriety.

The public may view documents filed for court proceedings by filing a “request to inspect”. The Registrar of the Supreme Court decides whether such a request should be granted. Sealed case files and court documents, affidavits and written submissions not used in proceedings, a registrar’s notes on hearings and certain documents in family cases are generally kept confidential.

Only advocates and solicitors admitted to the Singapore Bar with a current and valid practising certificate have the exclusive right to appear in the Singapore courts.

A company or a limited liability partnership which is party to court proceedings must be represented by an advocate and solicitor. However, the court may grant permission for an officer of a local company or partnership to act on its behalf.

Foreign lawyers do not have rights of audience. However, foreign lawyers may be permitted to appear as counsel before the SICC in certain cases – for instance, to make submissions on foreign law and if they meet the requirements for registration.

On application, King’s Counsel, Senior Advocates and the like can be admitted on an ad hoc basis to argue complex matters.

Third-party funding was previously prohibited by the common law doctrines of “champerty” and maintenance.

Legislative amendments to the Civil Law Act 1909 in 2017 abolished the above torts, permitting funding agreements for qualified funders in specified categories of disputes stipulated by the Act and regulations made under it (although these are not necessarily exhaustive).

To qualify, a funder’s principal business must be the funding of dispute resolution proceedings, whether in Singapore or elsewhere. The funder must have a paid-up share capital of at least SGD5 million or not less than SGD5 million in managed assets.

Lawyers are obliged to disclose the existence of any funding arrangement and the identity of the funder to the relevant court or tribunal, and to every other party to the proceedings.

Lawyers and law practices are prohibited from holding any financial or other interests in, or receiving commissions, fees or shares of proceeds from, the funder they have introduced to their clients or that has funding contracts with their clients.

Third-party funding is allowed for arbitration and related court or mediation proceedings, proceedings commenced in the SICC or appeal proceedings arising from any decision made in proceedings commenced in the SICC, for so long as such proceedings remain in the SICC, related mediation proceedings and certain insolvency matters.

Third-party funding is available to both claimants and defendants, although in practice funding is unlikely to be available to or offered to defendants except where a substantial counterclaim is involved.

There is no minimum or maximum statutory limit on the amount of third-party funding.

A third-party funder will consider funding solicitor-and-client costs, party-and-party costs and other costs incurred in the conduct of the matter.

Conditional fee agreements may be made in respect of arbitration proceedings and certain SICC proceedings and related mediation and court proceedings. Such agreements may provide for all or part of the lawyers’ remuneration and costs, including any uplift in fees, to be payable only upon specified circumstances or pre-agreed outcomes in the dispute. Pure contingency fee arrangements, whereby lawyers get paid an agreed percentage of the sum or damages claimed, remain impermissible.

There are no time limits for obtaining third-party funding.

Where both parties are represented by lawyers before proceedings start, the claimant’s lawyers must first enquire whether the defendant’s lawyers have instructions to accept service on behalf of their client. If the defendant’s lawyers do not confirm that they have such instructions within three working days, the claimant's lawyers can serve the originating process court papers on the defendant directly.

Before starting an action, a prospective claimant should have a letter of demand sent to the prospective defendant to give an opportunity for the claim to be acceded to and to potentially avoid litigation.

Prior to commencement and during the course of any action or appeal, a party to any proceedings has the duty to consider amicable resolution of the party’s dispute. A party is to make a written offer of amicable resolution before commencing an action unless the party has reasonable grounds not to do so. An offer of amicable resolution means making an offer to settle the action or appeal or making an offer to resolve the dispute other than by litigation, whether in whole or in part. A party to any proceedings must not reject an offer of amicable resolution unless the party has reasonable grounds to do so. The offer of amicable resolution must be open for acceptance for at least 14 days unless the parties otherwise agree. The terms of an offer which has not been accepted must not be relied upon or made known to the Court until after the Court has determined the merits of the action.

There are pre-action protocols for medical negligence claims that are brought in the High Court and the State Courts, and for some categories of claims brought in the State Courts, such as (i) personal injury claims, (ii) non-injury motor accident claims, and (iii) defamation claims. The court will sanction any failure to comply with these protocols unless good reasons are provided.

Where parties have contracted for a specific set of dispute resolution procedures as preconditions for arbitration, those preconditions must be fulfilled before an arbitration may be started.

The Limitation Act 1959 applies to civil suits. It provides for many different scenarios, but the more common ones are the following:

• actions brought for damages for personal injuries have a three-year limitation period from the time the cause of action accrued or the earliest date the victim had the requisite knowledge to bring such an action;
• actions based on a contract or tort have a six-year limitation period – the limitation period is extended for “latent” injuries or damage and there are certain special provisions for negligence, nuisance or breach of duty for such cases;
• actions to recover land have a 12-year limitation period; and
• no limitation period applies to an action by a beneficiary of a trust in respect of the trustee’s fraud and/or to recover trust property or proceeds from the trustee.

A limitation period usually commences when the cause of action accrues. For “latent” injuries and damage, the limitation period commences only when the plaintiff has both the right and the knowledge to bring an action.

The Limitation Act 1959 and Foreign Limitation Periods Act 2012 apply to arbitral proceedings as they apply to proceedings before any court and any reference in both Acts to the commencement of proceedings is to be construed as a reference to the commencement of arbitral proceedings.

A defendant must be properly served with an originating process, either personally in Singapore or outside Singapore (with permission of court). Exceptionally, the court may order “substituted service” by other means such as email, Skype, Facebook and WhatsApp, if personal service is impracticable.

After the Singapore Court has been seized of jurisdiction by way of proper service, a defendant may still challenge jurisdiction – for example, where an applicable arbitration or choice of court agreement exists, and/or if the Singapore courts are not the appropriate forum.

Proceedings are either commenced by an originating claim (usually accompanied by a Statement of Claim) or by an originating application (accompanied by a supporting affidavit). For personal injury claims, the claimant must annex a medical report and statement of special damages claimed.

Parties may amend originating processes after they have been filed, although permission of the court may be required.

Originating processes must be served personally on each defendant, unless alternative means of service are expressly permitted. Reasonable steps must be taken to serve an originating process expeditiously and within 14 days for personal service or 28 days for service outside Singapore.

Service may be validly effected upon a defendant’s lawyer who accepts service on behalf of the client. The court will also give effect to modes of service contractually agreed between parties.

Substituted service and service outside Singapore are addressed in 3.3 Jurisdictional Requirements for a Defendant.

A defendant who is served with an originating claim must file and serve a notice of intention to contest or not contest the claim within 14 days after the statement of claim is served on the defendant (where it is served in Singapore) and 21 days (where the defendant is served out of Singapore). If the defendant fails to file and serve such a notice or states in the notice that the defendant does not intend to contest the claim, the claimant may apply for judgment in default. The claimant may also apply for judgment in default where the defendant fails to serve a defence (including jurisdictional challenges and counterclaims) to the statement of claim 21 days (for service in Singapore) or five weeks (for service outside Singapore) after being served. A legal practitioner must not enter a default judgment against a party represented by another legal practitioner unless prior written notice is given at least two working days before default judgment is entered.

Default judgment is inapplicable for actions commenced by originating application. The matter proceeds with no opposing party in attendance.

Representative actions are permitted where there are numerous claimants or defendants having the same interest in the proceedings and every member of the group consents to being represented. The court may appoint a representative of a class where members cannot be ascertained. The court retains the discretion to discontinue the proceedings where its collective action is less appropriate, for instance in cases where there are disparate issues or defences raised in respect of members of a class of claimants.

No judgment or order can be enforced against any non-party to the proceedings except with permission of the court.

Legal practitioners have general duties to inform their clients of the basis on which their fees will be charged, as well as other reasonably foreseeable payments. To the extent possible, estimates of such fees and payments should be provided if requested by clients.

Interim applications can be made before trial. These are not limited to case management issues and can be applications for interim relief, such as freezing injunctions, search orders and sale of perishable property.

There are five ideals (Ideals) which the Singapore Rules of Court 2021 (ROC) seek to achieve, namely:

• fair access to justice;
• expeditious proceedings;
• cost-effective work proportionate to:

a)       the nature and importance of the action;

b)       the complexity of the claim as well as the difficulty or novelty of the issues and questions it raises; and

c)       the amount or value of the claim;

• efficient use of court resources; and
• fair and practical results suited to the needs of the parties.

The Ideals will guide the court’s exercise of its powers.

In order to achieve the Ideals, interlocutory matters are streamlined under the ROC. As far as possible, the court must order a single application pending trial (SAPT) to be made by each of the parties. The SAPT must deal with all matters that are necessary for the case to proceed expeditiously. The matters to be included in the SAPT include but are not limited to:

• addition or removal of parties;
• consolidation of actions;
• division of issues at trial to be heard separately;
• security for costs;

• further and better particulars of pleadings;
• amendment of pleadings;
• filing of further pleadings;
• striking out of part of an action or of the defence;

• judgment on admission of facts;
• determination of questions of law or construction of documents;
• production of documents;

• interim relief, including injunctions, search orders, detention, custody or preservation of property, taking of samples or conduct of experiments on the samples, sale of perishable property, transfer or handing over of property, interim use of property capable of generating income, sale and dealings with immovable property, interim payments, or appointment of receivers;
• expert evidence and assessors;
• independent witness and interested non-parties; and
• independent counsel.

The court may direct that the SAPT be filed and for the filing of supporting and reply affidavits. If appropriate, the court may also order written submissions to be filed with a bundle of authorities. The court may also direct parties to file an SAPT Checklist indicating the parties’ preferred sequence of the matters set out in the SAPT and the court will then issue directions on the SAPT to inform parties of the sequence of the matters to be heard for the respective SAPTs. The SAPTs can be disposed of over several hearings.

There are two potential scenarios where a party may wish to file applications at a time other than as directed by the court for the filing of SAPTs. These two scenarios are:

• where a party is seeking one or more reliefs specified in Order 9 Rule 9(7) of the ROC, namely:

a)       an injunction or a search order which may include an application for any other matter if it is incidental to the injunction or search order;

b)       substituted service;

c)       service out of Singapore;

d)       setting aside service of an originating process;

e)       judgment in default of a notice of intention to contest or not contest an originating claim;

f)       judgment in default of defence;

g)       summary judgment;

h)       striking out of the whole of an action or defence;

i)       stay of the whole action;

j)       stay of enforcement of a judgment or order;

k)       an enforcement order;

l)       permission to appeal;

m)       transfer of proceedings under the State Courts Act;

n)       setting aside third-party proceedings; or

o)       permission to make an application for a committal order; or

• where permission has been obtained from the court for an application to be filed. Permission must be sought by a letter to court setting out the essence of the intended application and the reasons why it is necessary at that stage of the proceedings. The court may deal with the request by letter summarily or fix a case conference to deal with the matter.

No application may be taken out during the period starting 14 days before the commencement of the trial and ending when the court has determined the merits of the action, except in a special case and with the trial Judge’s approval. The trial Judge’s approval must be sought by letter setting out the essence of the intended application and explaining why there is a special case.

A party can apply for early judgment through the summary judgment procedure.

A summary judgment application has to be made no later than 28 days after the date of service of the defence or defence to counterclaim, as the case may be.

The application has to be made by way of a summons supported by affidavits containing all the evidence that is necessary or material to the claim. The defendant can file rebuttal affidavits within 14 days after service, with a further right of reply by the claimant within 14 days after service of the defendant’s affidavits.

The claimant bears the burden of showing a prima facie case for summary judgment. If this is met, the defendant must establish a fair or reasonable probability that the defence is real or bona fide.

A party can apply to strike out an unmeritorious claim or defence on the ground that:

• it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence;
• it is an abuse of process of the court; or
• it is in the interests of justice to do so.

The viability of a striking-out application in respect of the whole of an action or defence should be considered at the time of submission of the SAPT.

No affidavits are filed if the applicant’s sole basis is that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence.

See 4.2 Early Judgment Applications. Judgment on admission of facts is available where a party has made admissions of fact in pleadings or other documents which the applicant can capitalise on to obtain a judgment or order in its favour. Further, the court has the power to summarily determine any question of law or construction of any document arising in any cause or matter at any stage of the proceedings. Such applications should be considered at the time of submission of the SAPT.

Any person seeking to be added as a party to an action may attend a case conference, if the person is aware of it, or may seek a case conference by letter addressed to the court and copied to all the parties.

A defendant may apply for security for costs to be provided by a claimant. Such an application should ideally be considered at the time of submission of the SAPT but may be made by summons supported by an affidavit as and when the applicable circumstances arise. At a minimum, the defendant must demonstrate that the claimant:

• is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction;
• is a nominal claimant or is being funded by a non-party, and there is reason to believe that the claimant will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so; or

• has changed its address during the course of the proceedings with a view to evading the consequences of the litigation, or the address is not stated or incorrectly stated in the originating process.

The court may decline to exercise its discretion to order security for costs where it would not be just to do so.

Where the claimant is a corporation, the court may order security for costs if there is credible evidence that it will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if the defence succeeds.

Costs are entirely at the discretion of the court. Generally, a successful party will get its costs unless there are special reasons for not awarding such costs.

The courts can have regard to, inter alia, the scales of costs in the ROC and judge-issued costs guidelines in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions.

The court may decide to determine costs at a later stage of the proceedings.

Most interlocutory applications are heard within two to three months after being filed. The applicant can request urgent timelines where circumstances warrant. Where the applicant is requesting an urgent hearing, the applicant should complete (as far as possible) and file Form 14 of Appendix B of the Supreme Court Practice Directions. The applicant should also prepare and file skeletal submissions for the urgent hearing.

In cases of extreme urgency, an applicant may request to have the matter heard without notice to the other side before the duty registrar/duty judge. There are requirements to give notice (to opposing parties/counsel) and all papers and draft orders of court must be ready. Parties who seek urgent relief on a without-notice basis are also under a duty of full and frank disclosure. Material non-disclosure may result in the without-notice order being set aside.

A party usually gives discovery by serving a list of documents in chronological order with a brief description of each document. The opposing party is entitled to inspect and obtain copies of the listed documents.

For general discovery, the court may, at a case conference, order that the parties in an action must within 14 days after the date of the case conference, exchange a list of and a copy of all documents in their possession or control, which fall within one or more of the following categories:

• all documents that the party in question will be relying on;
• all documents which a party ought reasonably to know are adverse to the party’s case;
• where applicable, documents that fall within a broader scope of discovery:

a)       as may be agreed between the parties or any set of parties, or

b)       as ordered by the court.

Parties can apply for specific discovery of documents or categories of documents. The court will order specific discovery only if the requested documents are properly identified and are material to the issues in the case.

The production of documents is guided by the ROC’s five Ideals (see 4.1 Interim Applications/Motions).

The two guiding principles governing discovery and production of documents are that: (i) a claimant is to sue and proceed on the strength of the claimant’s case and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case; and (ii) a party who sues or is sued in court does not thereby give up the party’s right to privacy and confidentiality in the party’s documents and communications. However, these principles do not apply if a broader scope of discovery ensues by agreement or an order of court. In such circumstances, the court primarily considers the ROC’s five Ideals and whether such broader discovery is in the interests of justice in aiding the fair disposal of the proceedings.

The court may order the parties to file and exchange affidavits of evidence-in-chief of all or some of the witnesses after the pleadings have been filed and served, but before any production of documents and before the court considers the need for any application. The rationale behind this is to avoid the possibility that witnesses may adjust their evidence to match disclosed documents, to crystallise key issues and streamline the matters to be dealt with in the SAPT, and reduce the scope of disclosure and potentially obviate the need for expert evidence.

Unless the SICC or High Court orders otherwise, discovery in SICC cases is governed by its own set of rules, which is similar to international arbitration practice.

In an SICC case, each party provides all the documents on which it relies within the time and in the manner ordered by the SICC. Parties in SICC proceedings need not provide general disclosure of both beneficial and self-damaging documents. A party in an SICC proceeding may be required to disclose particular documents upon application by the other party only if they are relevant and material to the requesting party’s case.

A party may apply to court to obtain discovery from a person who is not a party (ie, not a claimant or a defendant) to the civil case.

The application should specify the documents sought, and must be served personally on the third party and on every other party to the proceedings.

The supporting affidavit must state the grounds for the application, why the third party is likely to have the requested documents, how the requested documents are relevant to an issue arising in the case, and why it would be just to grant the application.

The discovery process during a civil case comprises two stages: general discovery and specific discovery. These stages are outlined in 5.1 Discovery and Civil Cases.

The court may order the production of documents and information before the commencement of proceedings to identify possible parties to any proceedings, to enable a party to trace the party’s property or for any other lawful purpose, in the interests of justice. The court must not order a document to be produced if its production cannot be compelled in law.

In respect of civil proceedings commenced prior to 1 April 2021 and in respect of which the Rules of Court 2014 continue to apply, a party can also seek information by serving interrogatories. Interrogatories are a supplementary form of discovery and assist in the resolution or clarification of issues in dispute by requiring persons to answer questions. The questions must be necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs.

In respect of civil proceedings commenced after 1 April 2021 and in respect of which the Rules of Court 2021 apply, there is no express provision for the service of interrogatories. However, the court has the power to order the filing and exchange of affidavits of evidence-in-chief after pleadings are filed and before document production.

A person has the right not to give discovery of documents covered by legal professional privilege, which comprises two categories.

First, legal advice privilege covers any communication made between a client and the client’s legal adviser, including in-house counsel, in the course of and for the purpose of employment of the legal adviser. The privilege extends to information which the legal adviser receives in a professional capacity from a third party and conveys to the client.

Second, litigation privilege covers information and materials created and collected, at a time when litigation is in reasonable contemplation, for the dominant purpose of the litigation.

In addition to legal professional privilege, a party may rely on other exclusionary rules to withhold disclosure of certain documents. These include “without prejudice” negotiatory communications and “marital communications”.

“Without prejudice” communications are statements made by opposing parties (or their solicitors) to each other in the course of settlement negotiations. “Without prejudice” communications may not be disclosed unless both parties consent. Such protection from disclosure is aimed at facilitating and encouraging out-of-court settlements.

“Marital communications” privilege is a statutory right based on the policy that relationships between spouses ought not to be disrupted. No person who is or has been married can be compelled, or permitted, to disclose any communication made to that person during marriage by that person’s spouse. Such communications continue to be privileged even if the marriage comes to an end. Only the spouse who made the communication can waive the privilege.

An injunction is an order of the court requiring a party to do or refrain from doing something. It may be permanent or interim.

A permanent injunction will be granted where the claimant’s rights have been infringed and will be further infringed if the injunction is denied and if damages will not be an adequate remedy.

An interim injunction is a protective order to preserve the status quo until the court can fully adjudicate the dispute.

The jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction is based on three fundamental principles.

The first is that it should protect some recognisable right, in respect of which the applicant usually seeks substantive relief. There must be a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience must lie in favour of granting the interlocutory relief.

The second is that an interim injunction does not finally decide the issues in dispute between the parties, but only seeks to protect parties from irreparable harm. The court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice.

The third is that if the court finds in the final judgment that an interim injunction had wrongly prevented a party from exercising rights, the court may seek to restore that party to the position that party would have been in had that party not been subjected to a restraint.

The court may grant a variety of interim injunctions. These include:

• prohibitory injunctions, which restrain a party from performing a wrongful act;
• proprietary injunctions, which restrain the defendant from dealing with a particular asset and its traceable proceeds;
• Mareva injunctions, or injunctions prohibiting the disposal of assets, which restrain a defendant from dealing with the defendant’s assets so that the defendant cannot dispose of them to defeat pending claims (including worldwide Mareva injunctions); and
• anti-suit injunctions, which restrain a party from commencing, or continuing to prosecute, proceedings in another country.

Under the ROC 2014, the court could grant mandatory injunctions requiring the defendant to permit the claimant to enter the defendant’s premises to inspect and seize possession of specified documents relating to the subject matter of the cause to keep it in safe custody. This was replaced in ROC 2021 by the Search order, which serves the same function.

Paragraph 85 of the Supreme Court Practice Directions deals with applications for interim injunctions outside of the court’s office hours.

If an application for an interim injunction is so urgent it cannot be heard the next working day, counsel can contact the duty registrar, who will arrange for a hearing to take place.

The hearing may take place in court or at any place as directed by the judge or registrar hearing the matter.

The applicant must ensure that all the application papers and the appropriate draft orders have been prepared. If the documents have yet to be filed in court when the counsel seeks an urgent hearing, the applicant must undertake to the registrar processing the application to have these documents filed no later than the next working day.

The registrar may also direct counsel to send the application and supporting documents by email if the application is of sufficient urgency.

Counsel must also ensure that all applicable notice requirements are complied with. See 6.3 Availability of Injunctive Relief on an Ex Parte Basis.

All applications, including applications for injunctive relief, should generally be heard inter partes. In exceptional circumstances, injunctive relief can be sought without notice to the defendant.

Under paragraph 71 of the Practice Directions, any party applying for an injunction without notice must still give notice to the other concerned parties. The notice may be given by way of email or, in cases of extreme urgency, orally by telephone. The notice should inform the other parties of the date, time and place fixed for the hearing and the nature of the relief sought. If possible, a copy of the relevant court documents should be provided. Except in cases of extreme urgency or with the permission of the court, the party must give a minimum of two hours’ notice to the other parties before the hearing.

Notice need not be given if the giving of the notice would or might defeat the purpose of the application without notice. The reasons for not following the Practice Directions should be clearly set out in the supporting affidavit for the application without notice.

If any of the other parties are not present or represented at the hearing of the application without notice, the applicant’s solicitors must inform the court on (a) the attempts that were made to notify the other parties of the application, (b) what documents were given to the other parties and when they were given, and (c) whether the other parties consent to the application being heard without their presence.

The judge hearing the application decides whether it should proceed without notice, or whether it should be heard with notice given to the defendant if the case is not sufficiently urgent.

To obtain an interim injunction, the applicant must undertake to the court that it will comply with any order to compensate the respondent for any loss the court might later find that the order for injunctive relief wrongfully resulted in. If the applicant does not give the undertaking, the court will usually refuse the injunction.

Where the applicant provides an undertaking, the court may, in an appropriate case, require the applicant to support the undertaking by a payment into court, by providing a bond from an insurance company, or a bank guarantee, or a payment to the applicant’s solicitor to be held by the solicitor as an officer of the court pending further order.

An injunction prohibiting the disposal of assets worldwide can be granted to restrain a defendant from dealing with assets which are located abroad, within several foreign jurisdictions or where some of the assets are within the jurisdiction and some are abroad.

An injunction prohibiting the disposal of assets can be obtained to restrain a third party from removing or dealing with the defendant’s assets, which are known or believed to be in the hands of a third party, and if there are grounds for believing that the assets may be disposed of to avoid execution.

A party who fails to comply with the terms of an injunction may be in contempt of court, which is punishable by a fine of up to SGD100,000, or imprisonment for up to three years, or both, unless the party shows the non-compliance was wholly or substantially attributable to an honest and reasonable failure to understand the obligation imposed on that party and that the party ought fairly to be excused.

Trials are typically held in public before a single judge.

The Claimant will first need to file the Notice for Setting Down Action for Trial in accordance with the Practice Directions. The parties will file and exchange the affidavits of the factual and expert witnesses (whose reports will be annexed to their affidavits) well before the trial. Bundles of documents and opening statements will be exchanged just before the trial.

The trial judge will normally review these materials before the trial and give appropriate directions for the conduct of the trial.

At the trial, the opening statements are frequently taken to be read, although the court sometimes requests oral opening statements to be made, after which the parties will usually present the evidence for their cases.

Generally, the first party to proceed is the claimant, unless the burden of proof in the case lies with the defendant. Witnesses (and their evidence) are admitted by conducting examination-in-chief, during which the witnesses confirm their identities and that the evidence deposed to in their affidavits is accurate. After the completion of the examination-in-chief, the opposing side’s advocate will proceed to cross-examine that witness. A witness who has been cross-examined may be re-examined by the advocate of the party who called the witness, but only on matters that were dealt with in cross-examination. Leading questions may be asked only during cross-examination. 

Once the claimant’s witnesses have been examined, the claimant may close the claimant’s case. If there is more than one claimant, they will present their cases in the order in which they appear on the record.

Upon conclusion of the claimant’s case, the defendant may elect to submit that there is no case to answer – ie, that the claimant has not established a sufficient case for the defendant to answer. 

If no such submission is made, the defendant will be called upon to present the defendant’s case. Examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination of the defendant’s witnesses will then take place. 

Once all the evidence has been adduced, the defendant will close the defendant’s case.

A judge typically does not interfere with the manner in which a party conducts the party’s case; any interference will only arise out of a necessity to ensure that the appropriate trial procedures and rules of evidence are complied with.

At the end of the trial, the trial judge will deliver judgment either immediately or, as is usually the case, reserve judgment to be delivered at a future date. If the judgment is reserved, the trial judge will also usually give directions for the filing of written closing submissions, and written reply submissions. Directions for oral submissions are also sometimes given.

Case Conferences

After the commencement of proceedings and before the trial, the court will usually direct the parties to attend a case management conference known as a “case conference” (CC), heard by a registrar. The first CC is usually scheduled eight weeks after the originating process is issued (in a case where the defendant is to be served in Singapore), or 12 weeks after the originating process is issued (in a case where the originating process is to be served out of Singapore).

The Registrar will inform both parties of the date of the CC and case management framework. Complex or high-value cases identified in accordance with the State Courts Practice Directions 2021 will use the Specially Managed Civil List framework, which contains a more rigorous pre-trial management process. There are also dedicated frameworks for certain types of claims, lower-value claims and general claims filed in the District Courts.

At a CC, each party’s lawyers will usually update the registrar on the status of the proceedings and the court will take control of and set the timelines and give directions for the proceedings. At a stage closer to the trial, each party’s lawyers will provide information such as the number of witnesses, the number of days the trial will take and the estimated costs of proceeding to trial. Directions may also be given for parties to exchange lists of issues for expert witnesses.

CCs may also be conducted by judges (JCCs). JCCs are usually scheduled after the completion of discovery, and again after the exchange of the affidavits of evidence-in-chief of the witnesses.

Interlocutory Applications

Once litigation has commenced, the parties may require a court decision on a variety of matters relating to the conduct of the case, such as an extension of time for filing pleadings or obtaining a summary judgment, see 4.1 Interim Applications/Motions.

Interlocutory applications are generally heard in private (ie, in chambers before registrars at first instance), although in some cases they are heard before judges.

In Singapore, jury trials are not available under any circumstances.

The admissibility of evidence is governed by the Evidence Act 1893.

Evidence is admissible only if it is relevant, subject to any exclusionary rules. There are a number of exclusionary rules. They include legal professional privilege and without prejudice communications, both of which have been covered above, and hearsay evidence.

Hearsay evidence refers to a person’s assertion made out of court, whether orally, in documentary form or in the form of conduct, which is then tendered to prove the truth of the matters it refers to.

Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible unless it falls within the scope of the exceptions specified in the Evidence Act. These exceptions include statements relating to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage or adoption, or a statement that is made by a person who is dead or who cannot be produced as a witness.

Expert evidence is admissible on matters that require specialised knowledge or training, provided that the expert evidence is sufficiently relevant and will help advance the court’s inquiry into the facts.

No expert evidence may be used in court unless the court approves. The parties must consider whether expert evidence will contribute materially to the determination of any issue that relates to scientific, technical or other specialised knowledge and whether such issue can be resolved by an agreed statement of facts or by submissions based on mutually agreed materials. The court must not approve the use of expert evidence unless it will contribute materially to the determination of any issue in the case and the issue cannot be resolved by an agreed statement of facts or by submissions based on mutually agreed materials.

As far as possible, parties must agree on one common expert. Except in a special case and with the court’s approval, a party may not rely on expert evidence from more than one expert for any issue.

The court also has the power to appoint an expert. Regardless of whether an expert is appointed by a party or the court, an expert witness’s primary duty is to the court. The expert must provide independent assistance to the court by way of an objective, unbiased opinion in relation to the matters within the expert’s expertise.

Hearings

Generally, all trials are held in open court and the public can attend these hearings. CCs and interlocutory hearings, which are conducted in chambers, are closed to the public.

In certain circumstances, trials may be held in camera (ie, in a court which is closed to the general public). For example, the maintenance of privacy or secrecy is a primary consideration in matrimonial suits and suits under the Adoption of Children Act, which must generally be tried in camera.

The court also has a broad discretion and may order a matter to be heard in camera if it is satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice, public safety, public security or propriety, or for any other sufficient reason to do so.

Transcripts and Judgments

A copy of every judgment delivered in any cause or matter heard in open court is available for public inspection upon payment of the prescribed fee, and a copy shall be handed to any member of the public upon payment of the appropriate charges.

Where proceedings are heard in camera, any judgment pronounced or delivered in such proceedings shall not be available for public inspection, though the court has the power to allow inspection or copies to be made of the judgment. In practice, written judgments delivered in respect of proceedings heard in camera are sometimes published, but with important details such as the identity of the parties redacted.

The courts adopt an adversarial system (as opposed to an inquisitorial one). The examination and cross-examination of witnesses are primarily the responsibility of counsel.

However, the judge can ask witnesses or counsel questions if, among other things:

• it is necessary to clarify a point or issue that has been overlooked or has been left obscure, or to raise an important issue that has been overlooked by counsel;
• it enables the judge to follow the points made by counsel;
• it is necessary to exclude irrelevancies and/or discourage repetition and/or prevent undue evasion and/or obduracy by the witness concerned (or even by counsel); or
• it serves to assist counsel and their clients to be cognisant of what is troubling the judge, provided it is clear that the judge is keeping an open mind and has not prejudged the outcome of the particular issue or issues or the result of the case itself.

An action is commenced by filing an originating claim or an originating application. The claimant has to take reasonable steps to serve the originating claim with a statement of claim, or the originating application supported by affidavit, on a defendant expeditiously. The originating claim must annex a notice of intention to contest or not contest the claim in the appropriate form. Once the originating claim with a statement of claim has been served on a defendant in Singapore, the defendant will have to file and serve a notice of intention to contest or not contest the claim within 14 days. If the originating claim with a statement of claim is served out of jurisdiction, the defendant will have 21 days to file the notice of intention to contest or not contest the claim.

The statement of claim, which sets out the relevant facts establishing the claim, may be endorsed on the originating claim and served together with the originating claim. Where the originating claim does not have an endorsed statement of claim, the statement of claim must be filed and served on the defendant within 14 days after the originating claim has been served.

Where the defendant has filed a notice of intention to contest the claim, and intends to defend an action, the defendant must file and serve a defence to the originating claim within 21 days after the statement of claim is served on the defendant (if the defendant was served in Singapore) or within five weeks after the statement of claim is served on the defendant (if the defendant was served out of Singapore). If a defendant alleges that the defendant is entitled to any relief or remedy against the claimant, the defendant may file and serve a counterclaim in the same action. In that case, the defendant’s pleading is known as the defence and counterclaim.

A claimant may file and serve a reply within 14 days after the defence has been served, but need not do so if the claimant merely wishes to deny assertions without adding anything material. Where there is a counterclaim by the defendant, the claimant may file and serve a reply and defence to counterclaim or just a defence to counterclaim if there is no reply.

After the pleadings have been filed, case conferences are held for the court to monitor and manage the progress of the case.

In simple commercial cases, the trial may be held within nine to 12 months from the start of the proceedings. Complex commercial cases can take longer. It can take anywhere from 15 months to three years for a complex case to go to trial.

The duration of the trials also varies, depending on the complexity and nature of the case.

Parties are not required to obtain court approval to settle a lawsuit before trial so long as all parties consent in writing. However, leave of the court is required to discontinue an action if trial has begun or if the action was commenced by originating application. Leave of court will invariably be granted if parties have reached a settlement. It is also common for the court to make a “consent order” reflecting the main terms of settlement if the parties so wish.

Parties may include confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements, which are enforceable as contractual terms. Permission may also be sought from a judge to seal any court papers to protect the confidentiality of settlements.

For matters settled through mediation, the Mediation Act 2017 provides for the confidentiality and inadmissibility of mediation communication, which includes anything said or done, any document prepared or information provided for the purpose of or in the course of the mediation, including the agreement to mediate and the mediated settlement agreement.

General contractual principles apply to the enforcement and setting aside of settlement agreements. Settlement agreements which are recorded as consent orders are also enforceable as court judgments or orders.

Mediated settlement agreements of a dispute for which no proceedings have been commenced in a court may be recorded as an order of court if the requirements under the Mediation Act are met. Singapore is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation and where applicable, international settlement agreements may be recorded as an order of court pursuant to the Singapore Convention on Mediation Act 2020.

General contractual principles apply to the setting aside of settlement agreements. Depending on the grounds for challenging a settlement agreement, “without prejudice” communications (see 5.6 Rules Disallowing Disclosure of a Document) may be disclosed.

Other than damages, the courts may grant other forms of relief such as injunctions and specific performance. The courts also have the discretion to grant orders for costs, which are usually awarded to the successful litigant.

Contractual damages aim to place the claimant in the same position as if the contract had been performed. While the courts have not foreclosed the possibility of awarding punitive damages for breaches of contract, such a remedy is rarely granted.

Tortious damages seek to restore the claimant to the position that it would have been in had the tort not been committed. Aggravated damages may be warranted where a claimant had suffered enhanced hurt due to the manner in which the defendant had committed the tort or the defendant’s motive in doing so. Further, punitive damages may be awarded if the defendant displays outrageous conduct.

Subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, an aggrieved party’s right to contractual or tortious damages may be excluded or limited by contract.

The courts may award pre-judgment interest for the period between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of the judgment. While the courts may award interest at a different rate, the current default pre-judgment interest rate is 5.33% per annum.

Post-judgment interest is generally payable and is calculated from the date of judgment to the date that the judgment is satisfied. The interest payable is based on the parties’ agreement or, if there is no agreement on interest, simple interest at 5.33% per year.

A judgment creditor may apply for an enforcement order to enforce one or more court orders. An enforcement order may authorise the Sheriff to do one or more of the following:

• in respect of an enforcement order for seizure and sale of property, to seize and sell all property belonging to the enforcement respondent;
• in respect of an enforcement order for delivery or possession of property, to seize and deliver or give possession of property in the possession or control of the enforcement respondent;
• in respect of an enforcement order for attachment of a debt, to attach a debt which is due to the enforcement respondent from any non-party, whether immediately or at some future date or at certain intervals in the future;
• to do anything specified in the court order.

The enforcement applicant may apply to the court by summons without notice for an enforcement order not earlier than three days after the court order has been served on the enforcement respondent. The summons must be supported by an affidavit containing the information set out in Order 22 Rule 2(4) of the ROC. Where there are multiple methods of enforcement sought, the enforcement applicant should state whether the Sheriff is to enforce them in any particular sequence or whether all or some methods are to be enforced simultaneously. If no such sequence is indicated, the Sheriff may carry out its terms in any order in the Sheriff’s discretion. An enforcement order is valid for 12 months beginning with the date of issue and may be extended by the court for a period of 12 months if the application is made before the enforcement order would have expired.

An enforcement applicant may also apply for the enforcement respondent to be examined to determine what property the enforcement respondent has and where it is situated.

Further, a judgment creditor may obtain a post-judgment injunction to prohibit disposal of assets as an aid to execution if there is a real risk of the judgment debtor dissipating its assets with the intention of depriving the creditor satisfaction of the judgment debt and that it is in the interests of justice to grant the injunction.

If the judgment debtor’s conduct or affairs provide probable reason for believing that the judgment debtor is likely to leave Singapore with a view to avoid payment or to avoid examination, the court may order that the judgment debtor be arrested and brought before the court for examination regarding the judgment debtor’s ability to pay the judgment.

Foreign judgments may be enforced in Singapore by the following means:

• under the Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016 (CCAA);
• by registration under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959 (REFJA); or
• by way of a common law action. 

The statutory regime for reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments has been consolidated under the REFJA with effect from 3 October 2019. The REFJA applies to judgments from Hong Kong, Brunei, Australia, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom. All the above jurisdictions, with the exception of Hong Kong, previously fell under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act 1921 (RECJA), which was repealed from 1 March 2023. The scope of judgments that may be recognised under the REFJA is more expansive than the RECJA. While the precise scope of enforceable judgments depends on the reciprocal agreement with the individual foreign country, the following judgments may now be recognised under the REFJA:

• money and non-money judgments (including freezing orders, injunctions, and orders for specific performance);
• higher and lower court judgments;
• interlocutory judgments; and
• judicial settlements, consent judgments, and consent orders.

A REFJA application must be made within six years after the date of the judgment. The judgment creditor may issue commence proceedings to enforce a registered judgment after registration has been duly made, the judgment debtor has been notified, and the period within which an application may be made to set aside the registration has expired. 

The CCAA currently applies to judgments from more than 30 jurisdictions, including European Union countries. Where the requirements set out in the CCAA are met, the Singapore Court must recognise and enforce a foreign judgment, subject only to limited exceptions within the CCAA.

Additionally, the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1975 provides for the enforcement of maintenance orders issued by the courts of designated countries.

Where legislation is inapplicable, a judgment creditor may bring a common law action for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment by seeking summary judgment on the basis of the foreign judgment within six years of the date of the judgment. A foreign judgment is enforceable if it is a final and conclusive judgment for a definite sum of money granted by a court of competent jurisdiction. It would not be enforced only if it can be shown that the foreign judgment was procured by fraud, its enforcement would be contrary to public policy, or the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained were contrary to natural justice.

The General Division of the High Court has the jurisdiction to hear criminal appeals from the District Courts, Magistrates’ Courts, Family Courts and Youth Courts. It may also hear civil appeals from the Family Courts, District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts, and other tribunals as may be prescribed by written law – for example, the Employment Claims Tribunals.

Appeals from the General Division of the High Court are heard by the Appellate Division of the High Court or the apex court, the Court of Appeal. With permission from the Court of Appeal, the decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court can be further appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Appellate Division does not have criminal jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal has power to transfer a civil appeal ordinarily allocated to it to the Appellate Division and from the Appellate Division upwards to itself.

Restrictions on the matters that may be brought against a decision of the General Division of the High Court are set out in Sections 29 and 29A of the SCJA and its Fourth and Fifth Schedules.

The Fourth Schedule sets out orders which are non-appealable, including orders made by consent of the parties and orders refusing security of costs.

The Fifth Schedule sets out orders which are appealable only with leave, including orders giving security for costs and orders refusing a stay of proceedings.

Appeals from a decision of the General Division of the High Court are allocated between the Court of Appeal and the Appellate Division of the High Court. The Court of Appeal hears criminal appeals and civil appeals prescribed under the Sixth Schedule of the SCJA. This includes certain types of appeals from the General Division like constitutional or administrative law cases, appeals against SICC decisions, decisions from arbitration proceedings and criminal appeals are specifically allocated to the Court of Appeal. Restrictions on matters that may be brought against a decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court are set out in Sections 46 and 47 of the SCJA and its Ninth Schedule. The Appellate Division of the High Court hears all other civil appeals.

Parties before the District Court or Magistrates’ Court may appeal to the General Division of the High Court without obtaining permission to appeal if the amount in dispute, or the value of the subject matter before the lower courts, exceeds SGD60,000. This is subject to the exceptions set out in the Third Schedule of the SCJA.

Parties may need permission to appeal, which is considered in 10.2 Rules Concerning Appeals of Judgments. All Registrar’s decisions are appealable to either a district judge (for proceedings in the State Courts) or a judge of the High Court (for proceedings in the Supreme Court) in chambers without the need for permission of court. The exception to this rule is that the Registrar’s directions or orders incidental to appeals or applications pending before the Appellate Division of the High Court or the Court of Appeal (such as extensions of time for filing the necessary papers for appeals) cannot be the subject of an appeal to a judge of the General Division of the High Court. A Notice of Appeal has to be filed and served on the other parties within 14 days of the decision.

An application for permission to appeal against a decision of the General Division of the High Court must be filed:

• where no request is made for the judge to hear further arguments, within 14 days after the date of the judge’s decision on all matters, including costs; and
• where a request is made for the judge to hear further arguments, within 14 days after the judge affirms, varies or sets aside the decision after hearing the further arguments, or certifies or is deemed to have certified that no further arguments are required.

A party who has obtained permission of court to appeal must file and serve a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date of the decision granting permission to appeal.

Where permission to appeal is not required, parties seeking to bring an appeal from the state courts or from the High Court must file and serve a notice of appeal. At the time of filing the notice of appeal, the appellant must provide security for the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

In respect of appeals to a district judge from decisions of the Registrar of the State Courts made on an application, or made on an assessment of damages or the taking of accounts, the notice of appeal must be filed within 14 days after the date of the Registrar’s decision.

In respect of appeals from a decision of a district judge or magistrate, or appeals from applications in proceedings in the General Division of the High Court, where permission to appeal is not required, the notice of appeal must be filed and served within 14 days from the date of the judgment or order to be appealed or, where a request for further arguments has been made, within 14 days after the court affirms, varies or sets aside the decision after hearing the further arguments, or certifies or is deemed to have certified that no further arguments are required.

In the case of appeals against decisions made by a judge arising from matters in an SAPT, unless the court orders otherwise, the time for filing of an appeal and for filing of an application for permission to appeal does not start to run until the judge has heard and determined all matters before the judge, including any appeal against the decision of the Registrar and costs.

If permission of court is required to appeal, the appealing party must file its application to the relevant court within the timelines prescribed in the ROC. An application for permission to appeal against a decision of a district judge or magistrate must be made to the district judge or magistrate within 14 days after the date of the district judge’s or magistrate’s decision. If the district judge or magistrate does not grant permission to appeal, the party may apply to the General Division of the High Court for such permission and serve the application on all interested parties within 14 days after the date of the district judge’s or magistrate’s decision not to grant permission.

Appeals before the Singapore courts do not operate as a stay of proceedings.

Standards of Review

An appellate court generally rehears the case on documents alone. It will correct any misapplication of the law but will not ordinarily disagree with the trial judge’s findings of fact. It is entitled to reverse the trial judge’s findings of fact only when they are manifestly wrong, and any advantage which the trial judge enjoyed by having seen and heard the witnesses is not sufficient to explain the trial judge's conclusion.

An appellate court may intervene where the inferences drawn by a trial judge are not supported by the facts on record, and may assess the credibility of witnesses based on (i) internal inconsistencies in their testimony, or (ii) the external inconsistency between their evidence and the extrinsic objective facts.

For appeals from registrar’s decisions to a judge in chambers, the judge is to decide such appeals as though the matter is before the court for the first time. In procedural matters, the appellate Court will allow the lower Court maximum autonomy and intervene only if substantial injustice will be caused otherwise.

New Points on Appeal

An appellate court would only allow a new point to be argued in exceptional circumstances. A party wishing to introduce a new point should clearly state so in its appeal. An appellate court would not decide in favour of an appellant on a ground put forward for the first time on appeal unless it is satisfied beyond doubt that it has before it all the facts bearing upon the new contention and that no satisfactory explanation could have been offered by the persons whose conduct is impugned.

New Evidence on Appeal

New evidence may only be admitted on appeal (with permission of the Court of Appeal) if the party can show that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial, that the evidence would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, and that the evidence is presumably to be believed. The court may also admit new evidence (without permission of the Court of Appeal) if the evidence relates to matters which have occurred after the date of the decision from which the appeal is brought and that such evidence materially affects the basis of the earlier decision.

Aside from matters such as obtaining permission of court and the requirement to provide security for costs above, there are no general conditions imposed by the court on granting appeals.

An appellate court has extensive powers when granting orders after hearing an appeal. It may give any judgment, make any order which ought to have been given or made, make such further orders as the case may require, and even order a new trial. These orders may be granted in favour of a party, notwithstanding that no notice of appeal has been given in respect of any particular part of a decision, or by that particular party to the proceedings. The court’s powers are not restricted by any interlocutory orders which have not been appealed against.

Two sets of costs are relevant: party-and-party costs (payable between parties to litigation) and solicitor-and-client costs (payable by parties to their solicitors). Costs are typically paid by the losing party to the prevailing party. The quantum of costs payable may be determined by parties’ agreement or determined by the court in assessment of costs proceedings.

In costs assessment proceedings, party-and-party costs are typically assessed on the standard basis, which means that a reasonable amount in respect of all costs reasonably incurred would be granted, and any doubts as to whether the costs were reasonably incurred shall be resolved in favour of the paying party. Solicitor-and-client costs are typically assessed on the indemnity basis, which also means that a reasonable amount in respect of all costs incurred would be granted, but that any doubts are to be resolved in favour of the receiving party. Costs assessed on the indemnity basis are typically about one-third more than costs assessed on the standard basis.

Where the receiving party is a litigant in person, the court may allow such costs as would reasonably compensate the litigant for the time expended by the litigant, together with all expenses reasonably incurred.

The court which heard a matter must fix the costs of the matter, unless the court thinks fit to direct an assessment of the costs. The court takes into account all the circumstances of the case, including a party’s conduct in the course of the proceedings, efforts made by the parties at amicable resolution, the complexity of the matter and the difficulty of the questions involved.

Costs carry interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum from:

• the date of assessment;
• the date of the order fixing the costs;
• the date of agreement (if costs are agreed between the parties); or
• the date of judgment.

Singapore offers a suite of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options, including arbitration, mediation and other forms of ADR.

Mediation has grown in prominence in the Singapore legal landscape, with the establishment of mediation institutions such as the Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC), the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC), the Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI) and the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution (SCCDR).

Hybrid arbitration and mediation options are also available in Singapore, whereby parties to an arbitration reference to first engage in mediation, and record any settlement reached as a consent award in the arbitration. Parties may then continue with arbitration if they fail to reach a settlement (ie, Arb-Med-Arb procedure).

ADR is an integral part of the Singapore courts’ procedural framework.

A party to any proceedings has the duty to consider amicable resolution of the party’s dispute before the commencement and during the course of any action or appeal.

A party is to make an offer of amicable resolution (either by way of an offer to settle or an offer to resolve the dispute other than by litigation) unless the party has reasonable grounds not to do so. A party must not reject any offer of amicable resolution unless the party has reasonable grounds to do so.

The court may even order the parties to attempt to resolve the dispute by amicable resolution or suggest solutions for the amicable resolution of the dispute to the parties at any time as the court thinks fit.

Courts may take into account a party’s failure to discharge its duty to consider amicable resolution, including any unreasonable refusal to participate in ADR in apportioning costs between the parties.

The Supreme Court Practice Directions provide that parties may make formal offers for engaging in ADR, and the court may give directions for the adjournment of pending proceedings if the parties are willing to attempt ADR.

The State Courts integrate ADR services into their dispute resolution framework through the SCCDR. Appropriate matters (such as non-injury motor accident cases, personal injury cases and medical negligence cases) before the State Courts will be automatically fixed for ADR at the SCCDR.

It is the professional duty of advocates and solicitors in Singapore to advise their clients to consider ADR as well as to give their clients sufficient information about the different ways in which their disputes may be resolved using an appropriate form of ADR.

Singapore has also sought to make ADR a more attractive option for dispute resolution by enhancing the enforceability of mediated settlements, through making mediated settlement agreements enforceable in the same manner as a court judgment or order under the Mediation Act. The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation also provides for the direct enforcement (and execution) of mediated settlement agreements across signatory countries. Singapore is a signatory to the convention and has enacted the Singapore Convention on Mediation Act for this purpose.

The Mediation Act 2017 provides for the confidentiality and inadmissibility of mediation communication, which includes anything said or done, any document prepared or information provided for the purpose of or in the course of the mediation, including the agreement to mediate and the mediated settlement agreement.

Various institutions in Singapore provide a range of ADR services. The main arbitration institution in Singapore is SIAC, which administers both international and domestic cases. International arbitration institutions have also set up regional offices in Singapore, including the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, the international division of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and Arbitration and Mediation Centre of the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

Private mediation service providers include the SMC and the SIMC. There are also bodies providing mediation services for specific disputes, such as the Community Mediation Centre for community disputes, the Consumers Association of Singapore for consumer-business disputes, the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre for disputes between consumers and financial institutions, MOH Holdings' Healthcare Mediation Scheme for healthcare disputes, and the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management for employment-related matters.

While parties may choose to implement either framework, the default position is that domestic arbitrations are generally governed by the Arbitration Act 2001 (AA), and international arbitrations are governed by the International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA). Both sets of legislation are based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (Model Law). Arbitration conducted by the SIAC may be conducted according to the SIAC Rules of Arbitration or other rules agreed upon by parties.

The 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) has been enacted into Singapore law (the Second Schedule of the IAA) and the substantive provisions governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards can be found in the IAA. Generally, a foreign award may be enforced in a court either by action or in the same manner as a domestic arbitration award.

A court may refuse to refer a matter to arbitration where the subject matter of a dispute is non-arbitrable. A dispute is non-arbitrable where its subject matter is of such a nature as to make it contrary to public policy for that dispute to be resolved by arbitration or not capable of settlement by arbitration. For instance, criminal offences are non-arbitrable.

The courts have the power to set aside awards in respect of arbitrations seated in Singapore only in the limited circumstances set out in the AA and the IAA. The courts will not set aside arbitral awards from non-Singapore-seated arbitrations. In determining challenges to arbitral awards, the Singapore courts adopt a policy of minimal curial intervention and will adhere to the narrow bases for challenging arbitral awards expressly set out in the AA and the IAA.

A party seeking to set aside an award must make an application to do so within three months of receipt of the reward, or the date on which a tribunal disposes of a request to correct or interpret an award or make an additional award.

The courts have more extensive powers in respect of AA-governed arbitrations than IAA-governed arbitrations, and may hear an appeal on a question of law. The applicant must first exhaust all arbitral processes of appeal or review and other recourses and either have the consent of all parties or leave of court, which will only be given in limited circumstances.

A party seeking to enforce an arbitral award may do so by applying to the High Court of Singapore for leave to enforce the award in the same manner as a judgment or order of the court. This application must be made within six years from the time that the applicant becomes entitled to enforce the award. The grounds for resisting enforcement of the award are similar to those for the grounds for setting it aside.

The Ministry of Law’s current overarching aims are to (i) build a trusted and effective legal system in Singapore that is accessible to all; (ii) strengthen Singapore’s attractiveness as a legal services and intellectual property hub; and (iii) enhance Singapore’s management and optimisation of State land and properties.

Unlike the wide-ranging reforms to the civil justice system that cumulated in the new Rules of Court 2021, targeted reforms have been implemented between 2022-23 to achieve these aims.

1.       The new Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022 came into force on 1 April 2022. The SCJIPR consolidates the Rules of Courts relating to IP rights in a single piece of legislation, grants the High Court exclusive jurisdiction over most civil IP disputes and provides an optional track for IP litigation which streamlines and simplifies procedures.

2.       Singapore has acceded to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. The convention streamlines the process for the service of court and related documents in civil and commercial matters overseas, providing a harmonised set of rules across Contracting Parties. The Convention will enter into force on 1 December 2023.

3.       The Family Justice Reform Bill was passed on 8 May 2023, which amends the Family Justice Act, Woman’s Charter and Guardianship of Infants Act to make family proceedings simpler and more efficient, and facilitate more sustainable maintenance outcomes.