Annual Report 2011 CONTENTS

VISION, MISSION AND VALUES 01

MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE 04

FOREWORD BY THE REGISTRAR 10

CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION 14

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS 18 - Opening of the Legal Year - Mass Call - International Conference on Electronic Litigation - Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) Tea

THE SUPREME COURT BENCH 24 - Changes to the Bench - Highlights of Judges’ Events - Judges’ Participation in Local and Overseas Events

INTERNATIONAL PROFILE 36 - Rankings in International Surveys - Overseas Conferences, Attachments and Speaking Engagements - Visits by Distinguished Guests

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 42 - Supreme Court Staff Workplan Seminar - Legal Colloquium - Customer Service Conference - Supreme Court Translation Audio Resource System (STARS) - Organisational Accolades

TIMELINESS OF JUSTICE 48 - Workload Statistics - Waiting Periods - Caseload and Disposal of Cases relating to Disciplinary Proceedings

QUALITY OF JUSTICE 56 - Significant Decisions of the Court of Appeal - Recent Amendments to the Rules of Court and the Practice Directions

ACCESSIBILITY TO THE COURTS 68

STAFF AND ORGANISATION 70 - Cohesion Day - Corporate Challenge - Staff Awards - Staff Welfare Activities - - Supreme Court Organisation Chart - Staff Photos VISION To establish and maintain a world-class Judiciary.

MISSION To superintend the administration of justice.

VALUES Integrity and Independence Public trust and confidence in the Supreme Court rests on its integrity and the transparency of its processes. The public must be assured that court decisions are fair and independent, that court staff are incorruptible, and that court records are accurate.

Quality Public Service As a public institution dedicated to the administration of justice, the Supreme Court seeks to meet the needs of court users, with an emphasis on accessibility, quality and the timely delivery of services.

Learning and Innovation The Supreme Court recognises that to be a world-class Judiciary, we need to continually improve ourselves and our processes. We therefore encourage learning and innovation to take the Supreme Court to the highest levels of performance.

Ownership We value the contributions of our staff, who are committed and proud to be part of the Supreme Court.

01 Judges and Staff of the Supreme Court of Singapore MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Response of Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong delivered at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012 on 6 January 2012

Association and Mr Junius Ho, President of the Law Society of Hong Kong, and distinguished guests from other Commonwealth jurisdictions. We thank you all for being present here to participate in this annual tradition.

On this occasion, we need to remind ourselves that we live in an imperfect and unequal world and all of us here who are involved in the administration of justice should do our utmost in achieving fair and just outcomes for litigants according to law. In this connection, I wish to thank the Attorney-General and the President of the Law Society for their assurances of their fullest support and co-operation for our endeavours in the coming year. I regard these assurances not as mere platitudes uttered Mr Attorney only on this occasion, but as vows of a calling. I also take note of the kind words and praise that Mr Wong Meng Meng SC, President of the Law the Attorney-General has expressed in respect of Society the contributions of Justice Kan Ting Chiu to the administration of justice in Singapore. We share in Members of the Bar these tributes to him, and we wish him a stress-free retirement. Ladies and Gentlemen, At last year’s Opening of the Legal Year, I spoke on On behalf of the Judiciary, I welcome you all to three main topics: (a) the state of criminal practice this morning’s ceremony to open the new Legal and the Criminal Bar, (b) the problem of missing Year. I also welcome the Chief Registrar of the clients’ monies in conveyancing matters, and (c) the Supreme Court of Brunei, Pengiran Hajah Rostaina need for a larger pool of expert litigation counsel binte Pengiran Haji Duraman; Mr Lim Chee Wee, to represent consumers and investors, especially President of the Malaysian Bar Council; Mr Kumar in advising and representing them in important Ramanathan SC, Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar financial or commercial claims against big business in

04 Message from the Chief Justice

Singapore. I am happy to note that all these concerns also mulling over whether to make prior pro bono have been looked into and certain measures will be representation in criminal matters another criterion taken to alleviate some of these problems, as you for future appointments as Senior Counsel. I will have just heard from the Attorney-General and the seek the views of my Judges and the Law Society President of the Law Society. I would like to add a on this matter. few more observations on these and other matters. Pro bono work The state assigned counsel scheme – Mr Wong referred to the American Bar “LASCO” Association’s recommendation of 50 hours of The Law Society has worked with the Supreme pro bono work every year for its members, and Court Registry in making structural changes has suggested that global lawyers based here to LASCO, the acronym for the state assigned might wish to make cash donations in lieu of their counsel scheme, in order to improve the quality of domestic pro bono obligations.1 But, before representation in capital cases. We have constituted we ask others to contribute, the Bar has to lead a LASCO Selection Panel, whose members include by example. In this regard, I am glad to note Senior Counsel and members of the Criminal Bar, that, among other initiatives, the Bar has in 2011 to provide a more rigorous emplacement and contributed about $127,000 to the Law Society’s assignment process for counsel to lead in LASCO pro bono programme, CLAS, of which $76,000 matters. We have increased the honorarium came from the larger law firms. But the latter payable to counsel, but not to market rates. We group of firms can surely do better, considering must not forget that many of the defendants that the Law Society managed to raise more than concerned would not be able to afford what is twice that sum at its 2011 Charity Golf Tournament. being paid as honorarium to the two assigned With their lucrative corporate and civil litigation counsel under the scheme. The value of LASCO is practices, these firms sit atop of Singapore’s wealth not in the honorarium but counsel’s services. I am pole (to use the caption of a Business Times report glad that many LASCO volunteers have spoken published in its Christmas eve edition). They are out publicly that the motivation for their efforts is among the greatest beneficiaries of our laws and not the honorarium but the personal satisfaction legal system. In corporate law firms, lawyers can of providing the best possible defence for their only “eat what [they] kill”. As pro bono work brings clients, with the added sense of achievement nothing to the dinner table, one can understand if their clients are acquitted or the charges are why young aspiring corporate lawyers would reduced. While the number of qualified counsel be reluctant to do pro bono work. They can be on the Panel is certainly important, the quality of encouraged to do so if management provides counsel is even more crucial. In this connection, I them with an incentive, such as crediting their pro would urge the Senior Counsel Forum to persuade bono work with a notional income based on what its members to play a greater role in LASCO and they would have earned for the firm at their normal also in the Law Society’s own pro bono scheme, charge-out rates. Perhaps, law firms that are large ie, the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (“CLAS”). As enough might even consider setting up pro bono Senior Counsel are, by definition, the elite of the departments, as some American law firms have profession, it is only right that they take the lead done. This brings to mind another thought: the in accepting pro bono work. For that reason, I am Law Society might wish to consider publishing an

1 Speech of the President of the Law Society at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012, Singapore Law Gazette, January 2012, http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/president_ message/President_Message_for_Jan_2012.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2012) at p4. 05 annual pro bono league table, like in the US. This or Part B of their qualifying exams. I should add will enable the public, clients, law students and the that Singapore Management University (“SMU”) legal community to know the rankings of law firms J.D. students are required to perform 50 hours in terms of giving back to society. of community service attachment at a Voluntary Welfare Organisation or an organisation involved in I am also glad that Mr Wong has provided clarity to pro bono and legal aid work. the meaning of pro bono.2 It is not just free work, but free work for our poor “neighbours” without Clients’ monies in conveyancing matters expectation of any kind of material reward – it is In August 2011, the Ministry of Law established a the work of the Good Samaritan. It is not free work statutory scheme to prohibit conveyancers from provided to clients or even to the Council of the Law holding conveyancing monies in clients’ accounts. Society or the Singapore Academy of Law (“SAL”). Clients have been given three choices as to how to safeguard their funds, at different costs – (a) For many lawyers, pro bono as a social value the setting up of conveyancing accounts with does not come from nature, but from nurture. In prescribed banks and for payment out from these the past decade, there has been an increasing accounts to be signed by the lawyers of both parties, awareness of this in some developed jurisdictions. (b) the payment of monies to the SAL to hold as In 2005, the American Bar Association revised stakeholders, and (c) the payment of monies to a its accreditation standards for US law schools to special escrow account. It is rather unfortunate that require that “[a] law [school] shall offer substantial the scheme requires the public to incur additional opportunities for … student participation in pro fees. Conveyancers can earn the goodwill of the bono activities”.3 As of 2011, 21 US law schools have public by absorbing these fees. Otherwise, the made pro bono work a graduation requirement.4 public will be seen to be paying such fees in order In the United Kingdom, a very recent report to protect the reputation of the Bar. Since this prepared by the Solicitors Pro Bono Group scheme was introduced, there has been, to my showed that as of 2010 “at least 61% of all law knowledge, no reported case of lawyers stealing schools are now involved in pro bono activity”, conveyancing monies. However, until experience as compared to 46% in 2006 – an increase of 33%.5 shows that the system is watertight, the Law Society Australia, following the example set by Canada, must remain active and vigilant in conducting has also made great strides in fostering student surprise checks on all law firms. After all, law firms pro bono involvement. hold clients’ funds from other sources as well. It is my hope that next year, we can celebrate 2012 as We should not fall behind these jurisdictions. The the first misappropriation-free year in the (recent) Singapore Institute of Legal Education (“SILE”) has annals of conveyancing. The lesson to be learnt proposed, and our two law schools have agreed, from this statutory scheme is that when it comes to establish a mandatory pro bono programme to safeguarding clients’ monies, the Law Society for LL.B. students from the academic year 2013. must act in the public interest, without favour to or A dry run of the programme will be carried out in fear of its members. this year. SILE and the SAL will provide funding to start and sustain this project for three years. Greater diversity in quality legal representation For foreign qualified students, they will also have This year will see the revival of the Singapore to complete pro bono modules either in Part A Circuit – not the Singapore Grand Prix – but

2 Speech of the President of the Law Society at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012, Singapore Law Gazette, January 2012, http://www.lawsociety.org.sg/president_message/ President_Message_for_Jan_2012.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2012) at p4. 06 3 American Bar Association, http://apps.americanbar.org/legalservices/probono/lawschools/introduction.html (accessed on 13 January 2012). 4 American Bar Association, http://apps.americanbar.org/legalservices/probono/lawschools/pb_programs_chart.html (accessed on 13 January 2012). 5 LawWorks, LawWorks Student Pro Bono Report 2011 http://www.lawforlife.org.uk/data/files/lawworks-student-pro-bono-report-2011-347.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2012) at p4. Message from the Chief Justice

something older which was sidelined by the need starting with younger lawyers who have less than five to grow our own pool of expert advocates. We years of practice. The success of this scheme lies very now have a sizeable pool of Senior Counsel who much in the attitudes of those who have to take the provide advisory, arbitral and litigation services to courses. But the Bar is fully aware that the profession offshore and onshore clients. However, experience will become even more competitive in the future has shown that their services may not be available as the Asian economies continue their anticipated to the general public in times of need. We have growth. CPD will not necessarily make lawyers more a very large financial and business sector in terms competitive, but at least it will make them aware of of contributions to our GDP – it grew from 24.4% the latest developments in the law and, hopefully, out of a nominal GDP of $158.1 billion in 2002 raise the quality of law practice generally. to 25.9% out of a nominal GDP of $303.7 billion in 2010. But, the legal services provided to these Plea bargaining sectors are dominated by a small number of large You have just heard from the Attorney-General law firms. The result is that the best litigation that he has had extensive consultations with counsel are usually conflicted out of advising or stakeholders on plea bargaining, which he has acting for claimants against big business as they referred to, euphemistically, as “consensual are mainly concentrated in the large firms. So negotiated outcomes in criminal proceedings”.7 we need a greater diversity of expert counsel to The Criminal Bar has an important role in advise, negotiate and pursue legitimate claims in obtaining the best outcome for their clients, and court. This is not a new problem. The Ministry of the Prosecution has to ensure that the public Law has consulted the Law Society and the Senior interest is not prejudiced by too ready an attitude Counsel Forum on the best way forward. We can to dispose of cases quickly. The courts are certainly expect amending legislation to be enacted this in favour of plea bargaining in order to reduce year. The Bar can rest assured that this will not be wastage of resources all round, but the disposal a free for all. The courts will admit ad hoc expert of prosecutions by this means must satisfy the counsel on the basis of need, and not simply requirement of public interest. because a litigant can afford to pay. We do not want to disadvantage litigants who cannot afford Relationship between the Bench, Bar and equivalent representation, nor do we want to the Attorney-General’s Chambers impede the nurturing of our own Senior Counsel. The working relationship between the Bench, Bar So, ad hoc admission will be on a case-by-case and the Attorney-General’s Chambers has been basis, with the court doing a judicious balancing of excellent in the past few years. I trust it will continue. competing interests in each case. I am happy to note that the Bar and Prosecution have, on their own initiative, started collaborative Mandatory Continuing Professional projects such as (i) a Joint Code of Practice and (ii) Development a Pamphlet of Rights, which provides information As the Attorney-General has mentioned, this about the rights of accused persons and victims in year will also see the introduction of mandatory a neutral manner. This is a positive development for continuing professional development (“CPD”) to our criminal justice system. At the inaugural Criminal assist our lawyers in updating their legal knowledge Law Conference last year, the Vice-President of in both the traditional and emerging areas of the Law Society, Mr Lok Vi Ming, has expressed practice.6 SILE will implement CPD in phases, the hope that our criminal justice system would

6 Speech of the Attorney-General at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012, http://www.agc.gov.sg/documents/AGC_Press_Release_06-Jan-12.pdf> (accessed on 13 January 2012) at para 19. 7 Speech of the Attorney-General at the Opening of the Legal Year 2012, http://www.agc.gov.sg/documents/AGC_Press_Release_06-Jan-12.pdf> (accessed on 13 07 January 2012) at para 5. “evolve [into] the most just, compassionate and arbitration in Singapore. As a legal services hub, accessible criminal justice landscape possible”.8 we are not in the same league as London or New We share this vision, but always bearing in mind York, but we will continue to grow as we have good these goals must be consonant with the greater governance, an efficient and responsive legal public interest in maintaining law and order. This system, adequate legal and judicial services and collaborative spirit will help to facilitate the smooth the Rule of Law – all the prerequisites for growth operation of the mutual discovery scheme for in the most dynamic economic region in the world. cases under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010. As for the Rule of Law, the SAL has just posted on its website a notice that it, together with our two Implementation of eLitigation law schools, will hold a symposium on the Rule of This year we shall be able to implement a state- Law on 14 -15 February 2012. The Rule of Law is of-the-art integrated electronic litigation system, not merely a powerful idea – it is the bedrock and or eLitigation, as the successor to the Electronic foundation of any modern and civilised society. Filing System (“EFS”). The EFS has projected our There will be prominent speakers on various courts as a global leader in harnessing the power aspects of the subject and you are invited to sign of information technology in our litigation process. up for the symposium and engage them and But today every developed legal jurisdiction has other scholars during the panel discussions. This some form of electronic system, some with multiple promises to be a lively event. capabilities. So, we need to move ahead. Not unexpectedly, we encountered many problems Appointment of Senior Counsel of a managerial and technical nature which the This year, the selection panel has appointed three project group believes it has successfully overcome. Senior Counsel. They are (1) Mr Kannan Ramesh, eLitigation will be more efficient and user-friendly (2) Mr Aedit Abdullah and (3) Professor Yeo Tiong to consumers, and should provide the litigation Bar Min, who will be our first honoris causa appointee. with more features, but without substantial increases I congratulate them on their appointments. in court fees. As no new technological system is bug-free, I seek the indulgence of the Bar and court Conclusion users to be patient and work through any initial This brings today’s proceedings to a close. On teething problems. Once the system is stabilised, I behalf of the Judiciary, let me thank you for your am confident that there will be exponential gains in presence, and let us leave here with mutual wishes, productivity all round. and hopes, that 2012 will be an even better year than 2011 for the legal community. State of Legal Services in Singapore Before I close today’s proceedings, I would like to say a few words to complement what the Attorney- General has said on Singapore as a legal services hub. We have been able to establish ourselves as a regional hub for international legal services because of sound policies supported by a strong legal community. The most recent example of Chan Sek Keong how sound policy can enlarge our legal services Chief Justice, footprint is the impressive growth of international Supreme Court of Singapore

8 Welcome remarks by the Vice-President of the Law Society, Mr Lok Vi Ming SC, at the Criminal Law Conference, October 2011.

08 FOREWORD BY THE REGISTRAR FOREWORD BY THE REGISTRAR

gether” (for the second year). The four thrusts, or agreed areas of emphasis, under Workplan 2010-2012 are Customised Training, Cross Collaboration, Knowledge Management and Paradigm Shift. These thrusts framed our targeted achievements, and it was gratifying to witness the transformation of creative ideas into reality and the realisation of our common vision. For example, the Training and Professional Development Committee was set up to institutionalise Customised Training for judicial officers of the Supreme Court, including a systematic induction programme, an international attachment programme and a mentorship programme with our Judges. We have also extended the international attachment programme to members of our staff, with the objectives of improving their his has been an eventful and rewarding technical skills and knowledge, exposing them year for the Supreme Court. Under the to best practices and inspiring them to achieve leadership of the Chief Justice and world-class excellence. Further, we have with the unwavering support of the incorporated e-learning under our Customised TBench and our staff, we kept our commitment Training thrust, complemented by a Learning to provide timely and quality justice. We Management System, to facilitate additional maintained all our service timelines, exceeded learning online and on demand. our demanding Key Performance Indicator for writ actions and achieved a consistently high These attachment programmes also formed a clearance rate this year. part of our Cross Collaboration thrust, which included several notable events. One was the In last year’s Foreword, I wrote about the inaugural Joint Judicial Conference between Supreme Court’s Workplan 2010-2012, with Malaysia and Singapore, which was held in the theme of “Achieving Creative Excellence”, Malaysia and attended by Judges and judicial or “ACE it” (for the first year) and “ACE-it-2- officers from both Judiciaries. Another was the

10 Foreword by the Registrar

International Conference on Electronic Litigation, institutions in Singapore, like the Supreme organised by the Singapore Academy of Law Court. An initiative in this direction has been with strong support provided by the Supreme the conceptualisation and development of a Court, the legal community and other partners. technology-enabled learning space called the The conference drew close to 400 participants “Learning Court”, to showcase the workings of from more than 35 jurisdictions, and featured the Supreme Court and to educate the public thought leaders from Singapore and other about our work and what it means to be a “Living countries. Ideas, best practices and potential Courthouse”. We look forward to launching pitfalls relating to the use of technology the Learning Court in 2012. Undoubtedly, in litigation were shared freely along with the Learning Court will enhance and boost possible solutions in this largely uncharted our Schools Engagement Programme, which territory. These conferences exemplified our received nearly 8,000 students from various efforts at achieving Cross Collaboration with schools and universities this year. our domestic and international partners and promoting inter-organisational Knowledge We have also ensured that our laws and practices Management. In addition, we continue to remain relevant and accessible. We are finalising welcome visitors from other jurisdictions and our root and branch review of the discovery to share our practices and experiences with regime for civil cases, after consultation with them. This year, our international programme the Bar and the public. This exercise is timely hosted some 127 study trips from more than as it allows us to evaluate our existing practices 69 countries to the Supreme Court. As an and to examine prospective issues that may extension of our Cross Collaboration thrust, arise in the face of technological and other we are developing further the idea of “Bridge advancements. We have also reviewed our Building” between different directorates and Rules of Court to simplify procedures and project groups with inter-dependent functions save costs. One noteworthy amendment was within the organisation. This will be one of the to Order 53 of the Rules of Court to permit focus areas at our next workplan. the grant of additional declaratory relief or other remedies in judicial review proceedings, The Supreme Court’s integral mission in the without the need to commence a separate administration of justice is to uphold the rule of action. Other areas that were reviewed this law in Singapore. One aspect of the rule of law year include the practice of concurrent expert requires the ready availability of comprehensive evidence and the system of taxation and costs. and accurate information about the key We have also used technology to optimise our

11 hearings by introducing “paper-less” hearings operational matters and special projects. The before the Court of Appeal. working relationships within this ecosystem are probably at their strongest, as we appreciate On the “heartware” side, we have already that we are greater than the sum of our parts, customised the concept of Customer Service united by a common aspiration to develop our to suit the unique position of the Supreme legal system into one that is second to none. Court. The principles that we subscribe to are encapsulated in our Customer Service Creed. The year draws to a close as we put the Following the discussions at the second finishing touches to Workplan 2010-2012. True Customer Service Conference held this year, to its theme, this has been a journey of creative we have set up a Customer Service Taskforce excellence. Looking forward, we are confident to reinforce and oversee our efforts in this of meeting the new year and its challenges, and direction. achieving excellence in the administration of justice in Singapore. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of our partners, who are instrumental in enabling us to improve the administration of justice. This year, we collaborated with the Criminal Bar and the Senior Counsel Forum to update the long- standing Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (“LASCO”) by revising the honorarium rates, setting up a LASCO Selection Panel and extending litigation support schemes Foo Chee Hock administered by the Law Society to LASCO Registrar, lawyers. In addition, we worked closely together with other agencies and stakeholders on Supreme Court of Singapore

12 CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION

The Judiciary is one of the three branches and criminal matters. It became Singapore’s of government in Singapore. The other final appellate court on 8 April 1994, when two branches are the Executive and appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy the Legislature. Under Article 93 of the Council were abolished. Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, judicial power in Singapore is vested in the The Chief Justice sits in the Court of Appeal Supreme Court and in such subordinate courts together with the Judges of Appeal. A Judge as may be provided for by any written law for of the High Court may, on the request of the the time being in force. The Chief Justice is Chief Justice, sit in the Court of Appeal. The the head of the Judiciary. Court of Appeal is presided over by the Chief Justice, and in his absence, a Judge of Appeal Structure of the Supreme Court or a Judge of the High Court. The Supreme Court consists of the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and hears both The Court of Appeal is usually made up of civil and criminal matters. The Supreme three Judges. However, certain appeals, such Court Bench consists of the Chief Justice, as those against interlocutory orders, may be the Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial heard by only two Judges. Commissioners. The Supreme Court Registry is headed by the Registrar and he is assisted by the Deputy Registrar, Senior Assistant Registrars and Assistant Registrars. Justices’ Law Clerks, who work directly under the charge of the Chief Justice, assist the Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners by carrying out research on the law.

Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal hears appeals against the decisions of High Court Judges in both civil

14 Constitution and Jurisdiction

High Court The High Court consists of the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court. A Judge of Appeal may also sit in the High Court as a Judge. Proceedings in the High Court are heard before a single Judge, unless otherwise provided by any written law. The High Court may also appoint one or more persons with expertise in the subject matter of the proceedings to assist the court.

The High Court hears both civil and criminal cases as a court of first instance. The High Court also hears appeals from the decisions the jurisdiction of the High Court. Generally, of District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts in except in probate matters, a civil case must civil and criminal cases, and decides points be commenced in the High Court if the value of law reserved in special cases submitted of the claim exceeds $250,000. Probate by a District Court or a Magistrates’ Court. matters are commenced in the High Court In addition, the High Court has general only if the value of the deceased’s estate supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction exceeds $3 million or if the estate involves over all subordinate courts in any civil or foreign assets. In addition, ancillary matters criminal matter. in family proceedings involving assets of $1.5 million or more are heard in the High The High Court has jurisdiction to hear Court. and try any action where the defendant is served with a writ or originating summons The following matters are also exclusively in Singapore, or outside Singapore in the heard by the High Court: circumstances authorised by the Rules of • Admiralty matters Court, or where the defendant submits to • Company winding-up proceedings

15 • Bankruptcy proceedings • Applications for the admission of advocates and solicitors

The High Court has jurisdiction to try all offences committed in Singapore and may also try offences committed outside Singapore in certain circumstances. In criminal cases, the High Court generally tries cases where the offences are punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment or more per charge, and offences carrying the capital punishment. including case scheduling. In their The Supreme Court Registry concurrent appointments as Magistrates The registrars perform both judicial and or District Judges, they conduct Committal administrative functions. They preside over Hearings in criminal cases. Some registrars hearings of various pre-trial and post-trial also hold appointments on tribunals and matters in chambers. These include: committees. • Bankruptcy applications • Interlocutory applications such as In addition, the registrars supervise the those for discovery of documents, day-to-day operations of the Registry and striking out of pleadings and take charge of various Registry portfolios summary judgment such as personnel, finance, corporate • Assessment of damages communications and security. They also • Taxation of costs steer and drive projects involving case management, organisational excellence, They also conduct pre-trial conferences information technology and knowledge and take charge of case management, management in the Judiciary.

16 SIGNIFICANT EVENTS SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

Members of the Supreme Court Bench together with the Registrar and Senior Assistant Registrars at the Opening of the Legal Year 2011 ceremony

Opening of the Legal Year (CPC 2010) which came into effect on 2 January 2011. The Attorney-General highlighted that prosecutors The Opening of the Legal Year ceremony was and legislative draftsmen from the Attorney- held on 7 January 2011 at the Supreme Court General’s Chambers were heavily involved in the Auditorium. During the ceremony, the Attorney- drafting of the CPC 2010 and that the CPC 2010 General and the President of the Law Society of was the product of much effort on the part of the Singapore renewed their pledges of support, on Ministry of Law and its partner agencies. behalf of the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Bar respectively, to uphold the rule of law and The Attorney-General also highlighted the facilitate the administration of justice. formation of the Economic Crimes and Governance Division, a third division in the Crime Cluster of the In his inaugural address at the ceremony, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, which focuses on the Honourable Attorney-General Sundaresh Menon prosecution of financial crimes and regulatory SC spoke about the new Criminal Procedure Code offences. To develop a closer collaborative relationship

18 Significant Events

between the Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Criminal Bar, he suggested several measures that should be adopted, such as a joint code of practice for the conduct of criminal cases, and more opportunities for young practitioners of criminal law to address issues of concern that may arise in the course of their work.

In his address, the President of the Law Society, Mr Wong Meng Meng SC, spoke about the Ministry of The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal and Judges at the Law’s plan to stop the practice of lawyers holding Opening of the Legal Year their clients’ monies in conveyancing transactions. Society’s training programmes and expertise to He noted that 159 law firms have signed on to other jurisdictions in the region. He also highlighted participate in the pilot trial to place clients’ monies the Law Society’s collaborative work with the in special escrow accounts either with the Singapore Singapore Academy of Law and the Ministry of Law, Academy of Law or selected banks. and reaffirmed the Law Society’s commitment to the continuous training and education of lawyers. On the changes and opportunities for the year ahead, Mr Wong SC noted how the Law Society’s In his response, The Honourable the Chief Justice Secretariat and Council can strive to improve their Chan Sek Keong congratulated the Attorney- work methods and systems through better financial General and the President of the Law Society planning and the possibility of exporting the Law on their new appointments. The Chief Justice also highlighted the merits of the Criminal Case Disclosure Procedure that was introduced in the CPC 2010. The new procedure levels the playing field for the prosecution and the defence by reducing the element of surprise at trial. In addition, the Chief Justice lauded the Criminal Bar for its role and efforts in working with the judiciary and the prosecution in ensuring that defendants are accorded a fair trial.

The Chief Justice also spoke about conveyancing New Senior Counsel appointed in 2011 – Mr Roderick Edward monies and small law firms. He emphasised the Martin and Mr Chan Leng Sun importance of keeping clients’ monies secure,

19 time the Mass Call was held at the University Cultural Centre at the National University of Singapore. The newly-admitted advocates and solicitors were favoured with two addresses, one by The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and another by one of the Vice-Presidents of the Law Society of Singapore, Mr Lok Vi Ming SC.

In his address, Mr Lok SC compared the declaration made by the newly-admitted advocates and Lunch reception after the Opening of the Legal solicitors to the marriage vow and parenthood. He Year ceremony concluded that “the vow you take today ... binds and noted that small law firms have a useful role in you to a time honoured profession and to the high providing niche legal services to the man in the street. ideal of serving the cause of justice as advocates and solicitors of this Honourable Court. It bids you The Chief Justice praised the Law Society and the to serve and protect ... in the way only members Attorney-General’s Chambers for the professional of this profession know how; in the only way the development programmes for their officers, and members of this profession are entitled to.” said that the Supreme Court had put in place an intensive customised training programme for The Chief Justice, in agreeing with the wise Assistant Registrars and Justices’ Law Clerks to counsel of Mr Lok SC, reminded the newly- enhance their professional skills and expertise. admitted advocates and solicitors that “a rule- The Chief Justice also pledged the Supreme based society like Singapore will always require Court’s support to the Law Society with regard legal services for social justice and economic to the latter’s interest in expanding regional and progress”. He recommended that the new international connections.

In closing, the Chief Justice announced the appointment of two new Senior Counsel, and congratulated them on their appointments.

Mass Call

A total of 257 law graduates were called to the Bar on 27 August 2011, the same day that the Guests and newly-admitted advocates and solicitors Presidential Elections was held. This was the first at the post-event reception at Mass Call

20 Significant Events

Newly-admitted advocates and solicitors at Mass Call lawyers read materials such as the Law Society of Honourable Justice Lee Seiu Kin chairing the Singapore’s July 2011 issue of the Law Gazette, organising committee. and the Singapore Academy of Law’s publication entitled “A Civil Practice – Good Counsel for In addition to providing logistical and Learned Friends”, to help them on the road in administrative support for the Conference, which they were about to take. the Supreme Court also contributed a host of speakers to the Conference. The Honourable the The Chief Justice also said that the education Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong gave the opening and training that lawyers receive will equip them address, while Justice Lee Seiu Kin addressed to take on leadership roles in Singapore’s nation the Conference as the organising chairman. The building. The newly-admitted advocates and Honourable Judge of Appeal V K Rajah, Registrar solicitors will be in a position to influence the Foo Chee Hock and Senior Assistant Registrar future of Singapore in the next 20 years. Yeong Zee Kin also spoke at the Conference.

International Conference on There was also an impressive line-up of world-renowned speakers such as the Right Electronic Litigation Honourable Lord Justice Rupert Jackson, Judge of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales; The inaugural International Conference on Senior Master Steven Whitaker of the High Court Electronic Litigation was held on 11 and 12 August of England and Wales; Mr Stephen Mason, 2011 at the Marina Mandarin Hotel. Organised by renowned author of publications on electronic the Singapore Academy of Law, the Conference litigation; and a number of Senior Counsel. The was supported by the Supreme Court, with the Conference attracted close to 400 participants

21 centre. As a clear sign of its success, the Singapore Academy of Law plans to hold the Conference once every three years. Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) Tea

The mock electronic trial held at the Supreme Court The Supreme Court Registry organised during the International Conference on Electronic Litigation the LASCO tea to thank members of the Criminal Bar for their support of LASCO. from more than 35 jurisdictions, with more than Held on 18 November 2011 at the Supreme 60 members from foreign Judiciaries. Court Viewing Gallery, the tea was well-attended by members of the Supreme Court Bench, During the Conference, participants gained insights Supreme Court Registry, and Law Society into various issues facing this rapidly evolving of Singapore. Close to 60 members of the field, including electronic discovery obligations, Criminal Bar were also present. developments in the law on electronic discovery in various jurisdictions, preservation of evidence, The tea kicked off with a brief address by The incorporation of technology in court advocacy, and Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, the impact of social media on civil litigation. The who spoke about the LASCO Selection Panel Conference culminated in a mock trial and arbitration which oversees the emplacement of lawyers on session held concurrently at the Supreme Court LASCO and assignment of counsel to specific and Maxwell Chambers where participants had the cases. opportunity to experience the latest technology on- site. Following the Chief Justice’s address, the Bench and the Criminal Bar interacted over refreshments. The Conference successfully promoted the It is hoped that such events will foster a deeper Supreme Court of Singapore as one of the key sense of collegiality amongst LASCO counsel jurisdictions in electronic litigation, and advanced and encourage greater participation in LASCO. Singapore’s positioning as a leading commercial

22 THE SUPREME COURT BENCH THE SUPREME COURT BENCH

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong

JUDGES OF APPEAL

Justice Chao Hick Tin Justice Andrew Phang Justice V K Rajah Boon Leong JUDGES

Justice Kan Ting Chiu Justice Lai Siu Chiu Justice Judith Prakash (retired on 27 August 2011)

Justice Tan Lee Meng Justice Choo Han Teck Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean

Justice Woo Bih Li Justice Tay Yong Kwang Justice Andrew Ang

Justice Lee Seiu Kin Justice Chan Seng Onn Justice Philip Nalliah Pillai

Justice Quentin Loh Justice Steven Chong Sze-On Horng Siong Changes to the Bench

Retirement of the Honourable Justice Kan Ting Chiu

Justice Kan Ting Chiu, Supreme Court Judge, retired on 27 August 2011 upon reaching the age of 65. He contributed a total of 26 years of distinguished service in various appointments within the Singapore public service.

Throughout his legal career, Justice Kan made outstanding contributions to the Supreme Court and the legal profession. Justice Kan was a Council Member of the Law Society of Justice Kan Ting Chiu Singapore from 1983 to 1984. From 1993 to 2005, he was a member of the Board of Legal Education, a body which provided for the training and examination of law graduates seeking admission to the Singapore Bar. Since 1999, Justice Kan served as Chairman of the Singapore Academy of Law’s Legal Heritage Committee.

To thank him for his services to the Supreme Court, The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong hosted a farewell dinner at the Grand Copthorne Hotel which was attended by members of the Supreme Court Bench.

The registrars and Justices’ Law Clerks also held a farewell tea and farewell lunch for Justice Kan respectively.

26 The Supreme Court Bench

Highlights of Judges’ Events

The Malaysian and Singapore Judiciaries at the Joint Judicial Conference

Joint Judicial Conference hosted by The idea for the Conference was first mooted by the Malaysian Judiciary the Honourable Judge of Appeal V K Rajah, to improve the already close relationship between The Malaysian Judiciary hosted the inaugural the two Judiciaries and to allow the two Judiciaries Joint Judicial Conference in Putrajaya, to learn from each other. With approval from Malaysia on 19 March 2011. Altogether, 15 the two Chief Justices, the organisation of the members of the Singapore Judiciary, including Conference was led by the Honourable Puan The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Nallini Pathmanathan and the Honourable Justice Keong, met up with their counterparts from the Steven Chong from the Malaysian and Singapore Malaysian Judiciary. Judiciaries respectively.

27 Each Judiciary presented two papers at work and their efforts at reaching out the Conference. The Malaysian Judiciary and interacting with the general public. shared its experiences on the setting up He commented that it would take time of the New Commercial Court – a highly for the Forum of Senior Counsel to grow successful initiative that the Malaysian as an institution and become part of the Judiciary implemented to clear its backlog public’s consciousness. He said that it of cases. The Honourable Judge of Appeal was important that the Forum interact Chao Hick Tin and the Honourable Justice with the media to help the public better Lee Seiu Kin represented the Singapore understand its pro bono work. Judiciary to discuss significant civil reforms in Singapore and the Criminal Procedure The Chief Justice also pointed out that the Code 2010 respectively. next decade would be crucial for raising the standards of the Bar. To earn the All participants found the Conference confidence and trust of the public, the best extremely useful, particularly since many values, practices and traditions of the Bar of the problems faced were not unique must be protected and strengthened. The to each jurisdiction. Members of both Senior Counsel, by their own behaviour Judiciaries also found time to bond and conduct, have to imbue young lawyers over meals, informal meetings and other under their tutelage with the values and activities. traditions of the profession.

Dinner hosted by the Forum of The Chief Justice stressed that the state of Senior Counsel the Criminal Bar needs to be looked into seriously. He noted that while the number The Supreme Court Bench was invited to of criminal cases rose significantly last year, a dinner hosted by the Forum of Senior the Criminal Bar has not been expanding Counsel on 18 July 2011. 14 members of in the last decade. To boost the Criminal the Supreme Court Bench and almost 30 Bar, he suggested that every Senior Senior Counsel attended the dinner. Counsel take on at least one criminal case every year. Another possibility was for a At the dinner, The Honourable the Chief senior criminal lawyer to start a criminal Justice Chan Sek Keong commended law chamber. the Senior Counsel for their pro bono

28 The Supreme Court Bench

The 14th Conference of Chief the notion of court excellence, such as by Justices of Asia and the Pacific formulating the International Framework for Court Excellence with partners from The 14th Conference of Chief Justices of other jurisdictions. Asia and the Pacific was hosted by the Supreme Court of Korea in Seoul from Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong concluded 12 to 16 June 2011. The Conference was his presentation by emphasising that attended by Chief Justices and Judges serving the needs of justice is the first and from 37 different nations across the Asia- foremost goal of the Singapore Judiciary Pacific region. and that it is for this reason that initiatives to institutionalise efficiency and excellence The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan are pursued with vigour. Sek Keong was invited to chair Session One of the Conference, entitled “The Application of Technology to the Courts – Present and Future Developments”, while the Chief Justice of the Republic of Korea, the Honourable Lee Yong-Hoon, spoke on “The Judiciary in the Information Age – The Present State and The Future Direction”.

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong was also invited to deliver a paper on the topic “Pursuing Efficiency and Achieving Court Excellence – The Singapore Experience”. In his speech, he spoke about the broader concept of court excellence, which encompassed more than just court efficiency and case management. It also included values such as the independence of the Judiciary, fairness and integrity. He said the Singapore Judiciary has played a “first mover” role in trying to establish

29 Judges’ Participation in Local and Overseas Events

Date Attending Judge(s) Host Country Name of Event 6 Jan CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Global Forum on Intellectual Property 2011 Andrew Phang JA • Andrew Phang JA was a panel speaker for the session entitled “View from the Bench – The Next Ten Years in Intellectual Property” 26 – 28 Jan Philip Pillai J Kuala Lumpur, World Justice Project Asia Pacific Rule of Law Malaysia Conference 5 – 9 Feb CJ Chan Sek Keong Hyderabad, India Patron Chief Justices’ Meeting and 17th Commonwealth Law Conference 18 Feb CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Subordinate Courts Workplan 2011 • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the keynote address at the Workplan 24 Feb CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Singapore Academy of Law Conference 2011 Andrew Phang JA Developments in Singapore Law 2006-2010: V K Rajah JA Trends and Perspectives Philip Pillai J • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the opening Quentin Loh J address • Andrew Phang JA chaired the panel discussion entitled “Contract Law” • V K Rajah JA chaired a speakers’ panel on “Arbitration Law and Practice” • Quentin Loh J delivered a speech entitled “Recent Singapore Decisions and Trends in the Arbitration World” 26 Feb – 6 Tay Yong Kwang J Doha, Qatar Study Visit to the Middle East (Qatar and the Mar Abu Dhabi and United Arab Emirates) Dubai, United Arab Emirates 3 – 6 Mar Chao Hick Tin JA Pattaya, Thailand ASEAN Law Association 33rd Governing Council Lee Seiu Kin J Meeting • Lee Seiu Kin J delivered the opening address 12 Mar CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Ninth United Nations Commission on International Trade Law / International Insolvency Institute / World Bank Multinational Judicial Colloquium on Cross-Border Insolvency • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the keynote address on “Cross-Border Insolvency Issues Affecting Singapore” 18 – 20 CJ Chan Sek Keong Kuala Lumpur, Joint Judicial Conference Mar Chao Hick Tin JA Malaysia • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered an address Andrew Phang JA • Chao Hick Tin JA delivered a paper entitled V K Rajah JA “Recent Significant Reforms to the Civil Lai Siu Chiu J Litigation Process in Singapore” Judith Prakash J • Lee Seiu Kin J delivered a paper entitled Belinda Ang J “The CPC 2010 – A Watershed in the Woo Bih Li J Development of Singapore’s Criminal Lee Seiu Kin J Justice Framework” Philip Pillai J Quentin Loh J Steven Chong J

30 The Supreme Court Bench

Date Attending Judge(s) Host Country Name of Event 20 – 24 V K Rajah JA Sydney, Australia Judicial Seminar on Commercial Litigation Mar Steven Chong J • V K Rajah JA delivered a paper entitled “Addressing Caseload Issues in the Aftermath of an Economic Crisis – The Singapore Experience” • Steven Chong J delivered a paper entitled “Arbitration Law – Reflections on Recent Singapore Developments” 25 Apr Steven Chong J Singapore Singapore Management University • Steven Chong J delivered a talk entitled “Arbitration Law – The Singapore Experience” 27 Apr V K Rajah JA Singapore Third Association of Criminal Lawyers Annual Lecture 29 Apr – 1 CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Annual Bench and Bar Games May • CJ Chan Sek Keong led the Singapore delegation at the Games 5 May CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Seventh China-ASEAN Prosecutors-General Conference • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the welcome address to the conference delegates 5 – 7 May Andrew Phang JA Sydney, Australia International Commercial Law, Litigation and Philip Pillai J Arbitration Conference • Andrew Phang JA delivered a paper entitled “The Impact of International Conventions and Model Laws on Domestic Commercial Law – The Singapore Experience” 18 – 22 Quentin Loh J St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg International Legal Forum May Russia • Quentin Loh J delivered a paper entitled “The Court’s Role as a Guardian of Business – Enhancing Accessibility to Justice, Efficiency of Justice and Alternative Dispute Resolution” 19 May CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Singapore Management University Yong Pung Andrew Phang JA How Professorship of Law Lecture V K Rajah JA 22 – 26 Andrew Ang J Brussels, 6th International Judges Conference May Belgium 31 May V K Rajah JA Singapore Law Society Biennale Lecture 2011 1 Jun Quentin Loh J Singapore Singapore International Arbitration Forum 2011 • Quentin Loh J chaired the discussion on “Insurance Arbitration – Lessons from the Financial Crisis” 10 – 11 Andrew Phang JA Sabah, Malaysia Journal of Contract Law Conference – Jun Commercial Contract Law: Malaysian and International Perspectives • Andrew Phang JA delivered a paper entitled “Recent Developments in Singapore Contract Law – The Search for Principle”

31 Date Attending Judge(s) Host Country Name of Event 12 – 16 Jun CJ Chan Sek Keong Seoul, Korea 14th Conference of the Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered a paper entitled “Pursuing Efficiency and Achieving Court Excellence – The Singapore Experience” 8 – 10 Jul Lee Seiu Kin J Johannesburg, Access to Justice Conference South Africa • Lee Seiu Kin J delivered two papers entitled “Ensuring Access to Justice Through Judicial Education” and “Optimising Technology in Litigation Process” 20 – 22 Jul Quentin Loh J Jakarta, Alternative Dispute Resolution in Singapore – the Indonesia Preferred Choice for Indonesian Cross-Border Businesses • Quentin Loh J delivered a speech entitled “Alternative Dispute Resolution in Singapore – An Option for Indonesian Cross-Border Businesses” 22 – 24 Jul Philip Pillai J New Delhi, India International Seminar on Global Environment and Disaster Management: Law and Society • Philip Pillai J delivered a paper entitled “Singapore Case Study – Management of SARS” 29 Jul CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Singapore Management University School of Law Commencement Ceremony 2011 • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the commencement address at the ceremony 1 Aug Steven Chong J Singapore National University of Singapore’s Faculty of Law Freshmen Inauguration Ceremony 2011 • Steven Chong J delivered a speech at the ceremony 4 Aug V K Rajah JA Singapore Herbert Smith – Singapore Management University Asian Arbitration Lecture 11 – 12 CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore International Conference on Electronic Litigation Aug Chao Hick Tin JA • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the opening V K Rajah JA address to the conference delegates Lee Seiu Kin J • V K Rajah JA delivered the keynote address on “The Incorporation of Technology in Court Advocacy” • Lee Seiu Kin J delivered the opening speech as the Conference Chairman 27 Aug CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Mass Call for Admission of Advocates and Solicitors • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered an address to the newly-admitted Advocates and Solicitors 7 – 9 Sep Chan Seng Onn J Sydney, Australia Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA) Criminal Justice in Australia and New Zealand – Issues and the Challenges for Judicial Administration Conference 9 Sep CJ Chan Sek Keong Kuala Lumpur, Fourth Tun Hussein Onn Lecture Malaysia

32 The Supreme Court Bench

Date Attending Judge(s) Host Country Name of Event 9 Sep Andrew Phang JA Singapore Launch of Singapore Mediation Charter • Andrew Phang JA participated as the Guest of Honour at the launch of the Singapore Mediation Charter 14 – 15 Sep Judith Prakash J Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Shipping Conference 2011 Steven Chong J Malaysia 20 Sep Quentin Loh J Singapore Singapore Institute of Arbitrators Commercial Arbitration Symposium 2011 • Quentin Loh J co-chaired the session “The Courts – Role, Support and Enforcement” with Dr. Michael Pryles (Chairman, Singapore International Arbitration Centre) 22 – 23 Sep Philip Pillai J Vladivostok, International Forum of the Asia-Pacific Countries Russia • Philip Pillai J delivered a paper entitled “Singapore Contract Law – The English Common Law Legacy in Asia’s Financial and Business Centre” 25 – 28 Sep Chao Hick Tin JA Kuala Lumpur, 5th China-ASEAN Forum Lee Seiu Kin J Malaysia 28 Sep CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore 14th Singapore Academy of Law Annual Lecture Chao Hick Tin JA • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the welcome Andrew Phang JA address V K Rajah JA Lai Siu Chiu J Judith Prakash J Tan Lee Meng J Belinda Ang J Woo Bih Li J Tay Yong Kwang J Lee Seiu Kin J Chan Seng Onn J Philip Pillai J Quentin Loh J Steven Chong J 1 Oct CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore The Law Awareness Project 2011 – Launch of “Law Cares” – A Law Society Initiative for the Elderly • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the opening address 7 Oct CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Code of Practice Seminar on the Mental Capacity Act: Rethinking Caregiving • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the keynote address 13 Oct CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Criminal Law Conference 2011 V K Rajah JA • V K Rajah JA chaired the panel discussion Choo Han Teck J entitled “Sentencing Options – What Lies Steven Chong J Beyond Jails and Fines?” • Choo Han Teck J chaired a panel discussion entitled “Criminal Litigation – Advocacy and Appeals” • Steven Chong J chaired a panel discussion entitled “Criminal Law and Practice – A New Opportunity” 19 – 22 Oct Steven Chong J Melbourne, Engaging the Asian Economies – Law & Practice Australia 2011 • Steven Chong J delivered a paper entitled “Investing Time in Asia – Strategies for Fruitful Co-operation”

33 Date Attending Judge(s) Host Country Name of Event 20 Oct Lee Seiu Kin J Singapore First National Conference on Construction Adjudication • Lee Seiu Kin J delivered the keynote address 20 – 25 CJ Chan Sek Keong London, UK Careers@Singapore: Legal Services Oct V K Rajah JA • CJ Chan Sek Keong and V K Rajah JA met with Singapore law students in the United Kingdom • V K Rajah JA presented a paper entitled “An Overview of the Legal Landscape in Singapore – Past, Present, Future” 31 Oct V K Rajah JA Singapore Singapore Academy of Law Panel Discussion: What kind of Lawyer are you? Differentiating yourself from the pack! • V K Rajah JA chaired the panel discussion 1 Nov Quentin Loh J Singapore Arbitration Dialogue organised by the Ministry of Law • Quentin Loh J delivered a speech entitled “The Role of Courts Within the Arbitration Eco-system” 2 - 4 Nov Philip Pillai J Seoul, Korea OECD-Korea Policy Centre, Competition Programme, Workshop for Judges in the Asian Region on Competition Law 10 Nov Steven Chong J Singapore Attorney-General’s Chambers’ talk for Legal Service Officers and Assistant Public Prosecutors • Steven Chong J spoke on “The Role and Duties of a Prosecutor – The Lawyer Who Never “Loses” a Case, Whether Conviction or Acquittal” 18 Nov Andrew Phang JA Singapore Court Volunteers’ Appreciation Dinner 2011 • Andrew Phang JA delivered an address 24 – 26 Quentin Loh J Montreal, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Nov Canada Commercial Arbitration • Quentin Loh J delivered a paper entitled “The Interpretive Significance of the International Normative Context in Singapore’s International Arbitration Law” 6 – 7 Dec Philip Pillai J Jakarta, Roundtable for ASEAN Chief Justices and Indonesia Senior Judiciary on Environmental Law and Enforcement • Philip Pillai J delivered a paper on “Singapore: The Singapore Clean Green City Matrix: The Singapore dynamic of governance, social policy, law and enforcement”

34 INTERNATIONAL PROFILE INTERNATIONAL PROFILE

Rankings in International Hock paid an official visit to the Hong Kong Courts Surveys from 14 to 17 February 2011. During the visit, the delegates engaged in In 2011, Singapore continued to do well in dialogues with their Hong Kong counterparts international surveys conducted by the International on experiences in the administration of justice. Institute for Management Development (IMD) and Apart from uncovering the similarities and the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC). differences in judicial administration between the two jurisdictions, the Singapore delegation also In the 2011 IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, delivered a presentation on the Electronic Filing Singapore once again topped the rankings for the System. The visit provided a good opportunity for category “Legal and Regulatory Framework”. Hong fruitful interaction between the delegation and the Kong and Australia were ranked second and third Hong Kong Judiciary. respectively. Singapore also came in 12th out of 59 countries under the category of “Justice”, which looks at whether justice is fairly administered in a Learning Visit to Qatar and UAE country. A delegation led by the Honourable Justice Tay Yong Kwang visited the Qatari and the United In the latest PERC report published in 2011, Arab Emirates (“UAE”) Courts from 26 February to Singapore ranked second out of the 12 Asian 6 March 2011. countries that were surveyed, behind Hong Kong but ahead of Japan. This ranking was based on a In Doha, the delegation met with the Chief Justice survey of expatriates’ perceptions of different judicial of Qatar, His Excellency Masood bin Al-Ameri. systems in Asia. The delegation learnt much about the Qatari legal system through a series of briefings as well Overseas Conferences, as a tour of the courts. The delegation then gave a presentation on Singapore’s case management Attachments and Speaking processes and the use of information technology Engagements in the Singapore courts.

Visit to the Hong Kong Courts The delegation also travelled to the UAE and visited To strengthen the relationship with the Hong Kong the Courts of Abu Dhabi and Dubai. In Abu Dhabi, Judiciary, a delegation led by Registrar Foo Chee they met with the Minister of Justice Dr Hadef

36 International Profile

bin Jua’an Al Dhaheri, and the President and in June 2011. They spent two days each with Chief Justice of the Federal Supreme Court, the the Hong Kong District Court and High Court, Honourable Dr Abdel Wahab Abdool. There and one day at the Hong Kong Court of Final was a vibrant exchange of ideas at a roundtable Appeal. They sat in for case management discussion and a dinner presentation. In Dubai, hearings, through which they gained deeper the delegation met with the Director General understanding of how the Hong Kong Courts of the Dubai courts, His Excellency Dr Ahmed managed and prepared cases for trials, as well as Saeed bin Hezeem Al Suwaidi, who gave them observed how the Hong Kong Masters handled insights on the various innovations undertaken difficult litigants. They also had the opportunity by the Dubai courts. The delegation also to sit in for bankruptcy hearings and legal aid visited the Dubai International Financial Centre appeal hearings. (“DIFC”) courts where His Excellency Justice Ali Al Madhani, His Excellency Justice Omar Al Assistant Registrars Eunice Chua and Paul Chan Muhairi, and the Registrar of DIFC, Mark Beer, also had discussions with many Judges and shared about the legal regime of the DIFC with judicial officers including the Honourable Chief the group. Justice Geoffrey Ma, Registrar Simon Kwang of the Court of Final Appeal, Registrar Lung Kim- “Our learning visit to Qatar and the UAE wan of the High Court, and Registrar Clement was an enjoyable and fruitful one. We were Lee of the District Court. introduced to the legal systems of Qatar and the UAE, and there was an interesting Through these interaction opportunities, they exchange of ideas on a variety of topics like the learnt about the challenges that the Hong Kong use of IT in the courts and case management. Judiciary face, for example, dealing with the On a personal note, we must thank our hosts rising costs of litigation as well as unmeritorious for their wonderful hospitality! We will fondly applications for leave to appeal to the Court of remember the Arabian coffee, dates and the Final Appeal, and the strategies adopted to deal visits to the Pearl, Katara and Burj Khalifa.” with those challenges. They also shared with the - AR Lionel Leo Hong Kong Judiciary Singapore’s experience with its Electronic Filing System as well as other Attachment to Hong Kong Judiciary technological initiatives employed to facilitate Assistant Registrars Eunice Chua and Paul Chan the litigation process. Finally, they had the were attached to the Hong Kong Judiciary opportunity to visit the Mediation Information

37 Office and the Centre forLitigants located in the “We realised from this experience how much Hong Kong High Court. the Supreme Court of Singapore achieved by implementing an electronic process. The “Observing how the Hong Kong Judiciary various judicial officers from the Queen’s handled similar matters, for example Bench Division we met with expressed bankruptcy, case management, in different their hope for something similar to be ways gave me a fresh insight into the rules of implemented there. We appreciate being civil procedure in Singapore and provoked me given the opportunity to learn from the to think about how their purposes can be best Queen’s Counsel who taught or took classes achieved.” with us at the Civil Law Seminar.” - AR Eunice Chua - AR Jordan Tan and AR Sngeeta Devi

The attachment was invaluable in Attachment to the Royal Courts of demonstrating how a modern, cosmopolitan Justice in the United Kingdom state can forge a legal identity uniquely suited Assistant Registrars Jordan Tan and Sngeeta to the needs of its people.” Devi, together with the Deputy Director - AR Paul Chan of the Legal Directorate, Ms Jasmine Ong, were attached to the Queen’s Bench Division Civil Law Seminar organised by the Judicial of the Royal Courts of Justice in the United College in the United Kingdom Kingdom (UK) for two weeks, from end June until Assistant Registrars Jordan Tan and Sngeeta Devi early July 2011. During their attachment, the attended a three-day Civil Law Seminar organised Assistant Registrars sat in with several Queen’s by the Judicial College in the United Kingdom (UK) Bench Masters, including Senior Master Steven in June 2011. The Civil Law Seminar was attended Whitaker, for chamber hearings, to observe how by a significant number of judges in the UK. The two interlocutory applications are conducted. Ms Assistant Registrars had the invaluable opportunity Jasmine Ong observed the processes of the to interact with these judges and learn from their various registries at the court. The delegation experiences. Participants of the Civil Law Seminar also visited the Supreme Court, the Central were able to choose from a variety of modules. London Civil Justice Centre and the Willesden County Court during their attachment. The Assistant Registrars attended classes on topics such as Evidence in the Civil Court and Damages. For two weeks in November, a similar attachment These interactive classes gave them the opportunity programme to the Queen’s Bench Division to compare and contrast the law in the UK with that of the Royal Courts of Justice in the UK was of Singapore. arranged for Assistant Registrars Tan Sze Yao

38 International Profile

and Elaine Chew, and Director of the Legal Lincoln’s Inn Alumni Association of Malaysia in Directorate, Ms Carol Liew. In addition, the association with London’s Honourable Society delegation visited the LexisNexis Academy and of Lincoln’s Inn, the Senior Tutor of the Course the recently completed Rolls Building Court was Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, and the Complex (Rolls Building) which brings under Course Director was Judge Alan Saggerson. one roof the whole of the English High Court’s judicial specialist expertise in London for the Attachment to Technology and determination of high value construction, Construction Court in the United financial, business and property disputes. Kingdom The Rolls Building was officially opened on Senior Assistant Registrar Teh Hwee Hwee and 7 December 2011. Assistant Registrar Terence Tan were attached to the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) Fourth Tun Hussein Onn Lecture and in London for a week in November 2011. During Advocacy Training Course their attachment, they sat in with Mr Justice Vivian Together with The Honourable the Chief Justice Ramsey and several other TCC Judges during Chan Sek Keong, Assistant Registrars Ang Feng open court and chamber hearings to observe Qian and Shaun Leong Li Shiong represented how TCC cases are managed. the Supreme Court at the Fourth Tun Hussein Onn Lecture held at the Shangri-La Hotel in They also sat in with Lord Justice Bernard Anthony Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 9 September 2011. Rix, Lord Justice Stephen Miles Tomlinson and Sir The event was graced by the Right Honourable George Mark Waller for a TCC appeal in the Court Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki of Appeal (Queen’s Bench Division). In addition, Bin Tun Azmi. The Right Honourable Lord they also visited the UK Supreme Court, Royal Robert Walker of Gestingthorpe, Justice of Courts of Justice and the Central Criminal Court the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, (Old Bailey). Finally, they also had the opportunity delivered an eminently insightful speech on to tour and learn about the purpose-built facilities “National Security and the Rule of Law – A of the newly constructed Rolls Building. Lesson from the Past”.

The two Assistant Registrars also participated in the Advocacy Training Course held at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Complex between 10 and 12 September 2011, and were awarded Certificates of Completion. Organised by the

39 Visits by Distinguished Guests

Highlighted below are some of the distinguished guests who visited the Supreme Court in 2011

18 Jan The Honourable Mr Sobchok Sukharomna, President of the Supreme Court of Thailand 14 Mar The Honourable Mr Anthony Smellie, Chief Justice of the Cayman Islands 16 Mar The Honourable Prof. Dr Heinz Vallender, Chief Justice of the Cologne Bankruptcy Court, Germany 12 Apr Mr David Ware, CEO of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia 21 Apr Her Excellency Aurelia Frick, Foreign Minister of Liechtenstein 25 Apr His Excellency Rauff Hakeem, Minister of Justice of Sri Lanka 20 Jul The Honourable Mr Anand Ramlogan, Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago 28 Sep The Honourable Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki Bin Tun Azmi, Former Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Malaysia 31 Oct Mr Jagdish Sharan Verma, Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India 11 Nov The Honourable Md Muzammel Hossain, Chief Justice of Bangladesh

(L-R) Deputy Registrar Audrey Lim, Registrar Foo Chee Hock, Chief Minister of Justice of Sri Lanka His Excellency Rauff Executive Officer of the Supreme Court of Victoria David Ware and Hakeem and his delegation calling on The Honourable Senior Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong

40 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

Registrar Foo Chee Hock delivering his speech at Supreme Court staff viewing the exhibits set up during the the Staff Workplan Seminar 2011 Staff Workplan Seminar 2011 Supreme Court Staff Workplan Seminar The Supreme Court Staff Workplan Seminar • Highlight areas of focus for the 2011 was held on 19 April 2011. The Seminar coming year provided an opportunity for staff to take • Review and celebrate the achievements stock of the Supreme Court’s Workplan over of FY2010 a two-year planning cycle. Themed “ACE-it-2- • Introduce the concept of Design Thinking gether”, staff were introduced to the concept of Design Thinking as a possible pathway The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek towards transformative innovation. Keong graced the occasion and presented various awards to the staff, such as the National The objectives of the seminar were to: Day Award, Excellent Service Award and Star • Communicate strategic objectives and key Service Award. He also gave away prizes to initiatives for Financial Year (FY) 2011 the winning Work Improvement Teams.

42 Strategic Management

Registrars and Justices’ Law Clerks at iFly in Sentosa

Legal Colloquium Court. It was an interactive session where the On 14 October 2011, registrars and Justices’ Law audience and the presenters actively engaged in Clerks (JLCs) participated in the Supreme Court’s discussions. This was followed by a quiz on legal Legal Colloquium – an annual corporate retreat knowledge and trivia. for the registrars and JLCs. The highlight of the day was the indoor simulated Kicking off the Colloquium, the JLCs gave an skydive experience in a wind tunnel at iFly, one of update on recent cases heard in the Supreme the latest attractions at Sentosa. The participants

43 The Conference itself was a light-hearted event which consisted of two fun and thought- provoking skits performed by combined directorate teams which reiterated the importance of good customer service. Other programmes included video-clips featuring interviews with the Supreme Court’s PS21 Star Service Award winners, Mr Chia Kum Khuen and Mr Shabab s/o Ali Qadir, as well as onstage Expert corner negotiations at the “Luge” ‘live’ sharing by Mr Jimmy Liew and Mr Lim then braved a slight drizzle and took a “skyride” to the top of a hill and raced down a steep slope in a sled-like vehicle known as a “Luge”. Customer Service Conference The second Customer Service Conference of the Supreme Court was held on 19 October 2011, two years after the inaugural conference in 2009. The theme “M.A.D again about Singing their hearts out about Customer Service, the Customer Service” re-affirmed the Supreme Supreme Court way Court’s commitment to the ideals of the first Customer Service Conference.

The Conference was preceded by emails containing quizzes to staff of the Supreme Court, to enhance awareness of the Supreme Court’s Customer Service Creed. The organising committee also staged a road-show to test the various directorates on how well they remembered the Customer Service Creed. The winning team of the Customer Service Conference skit contest

44 Strategic Management

The happy participants at the Customer Service Conference

Cher Yeow on good customer service rendered To close the event, Registrar Foo Chee Hock and to external customers of the Supreme Court. Deputy Registrar Audrey Lim handed out prizes to the winners of the various competitions. There was also a song-writing and singing competition, where participants sang songs Supreme Court Translation with altered lyrics pertaining to customer service. Some participants even wrote original Audio Resource System songs for the event. Their performances were (STARS) indeed deserving of praise and provided much The Supreme Court Translation Audio Resource entertainment for those who attended the System (STARS) is a user-friendly database that Conference. promotes uniformity in the interpretation of

45 To publicise the availability of STARS to Government agencies and interested organisations, STARS on Web was launched on the Supreme Court website in October 2011. It provides Web-users with useful information on STARS and allows them to try out the unique features online.

The Supreme Court Translation Audio Resource Organisational Accolades System (STARS) In 2011, the Supreme Court was conferred the common terms and expressions in High Court following awards: proceedings. Previously, court interpreters relied on their personal hard copy glossaries when they Total Defence Award - Distinguished Defence carried out translations. With STARS, interpreters Partner Award now have quick access to a central database that - Conferred by the Ministry of Defence makes translating difficult or technical terms in recognition of outstanding support easier and faster. for Total Defence. STARS initially launched with a database comprising close to 7,000 terms in seven main Energy Smart Office Award categories - Legal, Commerce, Building and - Conferred by the National Environment Construction, Information Technology, Court Agency in recognition of efforts taken to Greetings, Medical and Latin terms. The database promote environmental sustainability. was expanded to cover over 13,000 additional terms in eight new categories - Logistics, Management, Maritime, Psychology, Securities, Planning and BCA Green Mark for Buildings Award – Gold Development, Finance and Insurance and Police - Conferred by the Building and Construction Authority in recognition of Terms. excellence in the built environment in the areas of safety, quality, sustainability and STARS is made more unique by the fact that it user-friendliness. provides audio files of the terms in the four major languages used in Singapore. Accessing the audio files in the English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil languages is now a click away.

46 TIMELINESS OF JUSTICE TIMELINESS OF JUSTICE Workload Statistics

Caseload and Disposal in 2011 In 2011, the Supreme Court received a total of The breakdown of the caseload and disposal 13,146 new civil and criminal matters. In the same of the civil and criminal proceedings for 2011 period, a total of 12,859 matters were disposed are shown in the following charts. The resultant of. The clearance rate# for all civil and criminal clearance rates are reflected accordingly. matters for 2011 was 98%.

Civil Jurisdiction

8,000 97% 97% Filed Disposed Clearance Rate

6,032 5,876 6,000 5,757 5,609

4,000

No. of Cases 89% 136% 98% 2,000 698 624 159 217 83 81 0 Civil Originating Civil Interlocutory Appeals before Appeals before Applications Processes Applications the High Court the Court of before the Court Appeal of Appeal

Criminal Jurisdiction 111% 300 270 Filed Disposed Clearance Rate 250 244

200

106% 150 104% 94 No. of Cases 100 89 81% 128% 50 52 50 23 16 13 18 0

Criminal Cases Criminal Magistrate’s Criminal Criminal Appeals Motions* Appeals Revisions * Figure includes Criminal Motions before the Court of Appeal.

48 # The percentage stated may exceed 100% when the case disposal figure is greater than the filing figure. Disposal figures may include cases filed in previous year(s) which were disposed of in the current year. Timeliness of Justice

Caseload and Disposal Trends The clearance rate for all civil and criminal matters The volume of cases in 2011 was about 2% lower in 2011 was 98%, the same as for 2010. than that for 2010. This was attributable to the lower volume of civil and criminal appellate matters A comparison of caseload and disposal between received in 2011. 2011 and 2010 is illustrated in the charts that follow.

Civil Jurisdiction

8,000 2010 2011

6,248 6,032 5,757 6,000 5,523

4,000

No. of Cases Filed 2,000 781 698 242 159 125 83 0 Civil Originating Civil Appeals Appeals Applications Processes Interlocutory before the High before the Court before the Court Applications Court of Appeal of Appeal

8,000 2010 2011

6,000 5,938 5,876 5,703 5,609

4,000

2,000

No. of Cases Disposed Of 776 624 186 217 119 81 0 Civil Originating Civil Appeals Appeals Applications Processes Interlocutory before the High before the Court before the Court Applications Court of Appeal of Appeal

49 Criminal Jurisdiction 350 2010 2011 309 300

250 244

200

150

No. of Cases Filed 100 89 56 36 50 50 30 13 16 18 0 Criminal Cases Criminal Magistrate’s Criminal Criminal Motions* Appeals Revisions Appeals

300 278 270 2010 2011 250

200

150

100 94 44 52 48 50 32 No. of Cases Disposed Of 23 13 13 0 Criminal Cases Criminal Magistrate’s Criminal Criminal Motions* Appeals Revisions Appeals

* Figure includes Criminal Motions before the Court of Appeal.

50 Timeliness of Justice

Waiting Periods

Targets for waiting periods in various court past few years, the targets set have all been processes have been set as part of the consistently achieved. Supreme Court’s commitment to the provision of quality public service. These targets are The average timelines for waiting periods reviewed annually to ensure that they are achieved are set out in the tables that follow for realistic and match international benchmarks. the corresponding years of 2010 and 2011. In The Supreme Court endeavours to achieve particular, trial dates for civil cases were given 90% compliance with all targets set. For the within four weeks of the date of set down.

Original Civil Jurisdiction Target set by Achievement* Type of Proceedings Department 2010 2011

Trials in Writ Action 8 weeks from the date of 2.9 weeks 3.1 weeks set down to trial

Originating Summonses (OS) 5 weeks from the date of 4.4 weeks 4.3 weeks filing of the OS (i) Inter partes 3 weeks from the date of 1.3 weeks 1.0 week (ii) Ex parte filing of the OS

Bankruptcy OS# 6 weeks from the date of 3.2 weeks 3.4 weeks filing of the OS

Company Winding-Up OS 4 weeks from the date of 3.5 weeks 3.4 weeks filing of the OS

Probate OS 5 weeks from the date of 3.5 weeks 4.1 weeks filing of the OS

* “Achievement” refers to the average timelines attained for the year and excludes court vacations. # This item refers to applications for bankruptcy orders (known as bankruptcy petitions prior to April 2006) only. 51 Target set by Achievement* Type of Proceedings Department 2010 2011

Summonses (SUM) 5 weeks from the date of 4.9 weeks 4.6 weeks (i) Summonses for summary filing of the SUM judgment pursuant to (statutory minimum period of Order 14 of the Rules of 4.4 weeks) Court

(ii) All other summonses 3 weeks from the date of Before Before filing of the SUM Judge Judge 1.3 weeks 1.9 weeks

Before Before Registrar Registrar 1.2 weeks 1.2 weeks

Probate SUM 4 weeks from the date of 2.5 weeks 3.1 weeks filing of the SUM

Bankruptcy SUM# 4 weeks from the date of 3.9 weeks 3.9 weeks filing of the SUM (statutory minimum period of 3 weeks)

Original Criminal Jurisdiction Target set by Achievement* Type of Proceedings Department 2010 2011

Trials of Criminal Cases 6 weeks from the date of the 5.4 weeks 5.0 weeks preliminary inquiry

* “Achievement” refers to the average timelines attained for the year and excludes court vacations. # This item refers to applications for discharge only.

52 Timeliness of Justice

Appellate Civil Jurisdiction

Target set by Achievement* Type of Proceedings Department 2010 2011

Appeal to the Court of Appeal

(i) Civil appeals heard Ready to be heard within 12.0 weeks 12.0 weeks before 2 Judges 12 weeks from the date of notification to collect the record of proceedings (ROP)

(ii) Civil appeals heard Ready to be heard within 16.0 weeks 15.9 weeks before 3 Judges 16 weeks from the date of notification to collect the ROP

Registrar’s Appeals to the High 3 weeks from the date of 2.0 weeks 2.2 weeks Court Judge in Chambers filing of the appeal

4 weeks from the date of 2.6 weeks 2.8 weeks filing of the appeal (against assessment of damages)

Appeals to the High Court from 4 weeks from the date of 3.2 weeks 3.3 weeks the Subordinate Courts receipt of the ROP

Appellate Criminal Jurisdiction

Target set by Achievement* Type of Proceedings Department 2010 2011

Appeal to the Court of Appeal 8 weeks after the week 8.0 weeks 6.7 weeks of receipt of the last confirmation of the ROP

Appeals to the High Court from 8 weeks from the date of 6.0 weeks 5.9 weeks the Subordinate Courts receipt of the ROP

* “Achievement” refers to the average timelines attained for the year and excludes court vacations.

53 Caseload and Disposal of Cases relating to Disciplinary Proceedings

Under the Legal Profession (Disciplinary for 13 cases have been completed, leaving Tribunal) Rules, the Disciplinary Tribunal seven outstanding cases to be heard in 2012. Secretariat is established by the Supreme Court to provide administrative support to a In the year under review, the Court of Three Disciplinary Tribunal. Judges heard five cases involving eight Advocates and Solicitors. Of these, three In 2011, The Honourable the Chief Justice Advocates and Solicitors were struck off the Chan Sek Keong appointed 16 Disciplinary Roll of Advocates and Solicitors, three were Tribunals, as compared to 10 Disciplinary suspended for 30 months, and one was fined Tribunals in 2010. Together with four cases $50,000 and censured. The Court of Three brought forward from 2010, the caseload of Judges also adjourned a hearing involving one the Disciplinary Tribunal Secretariat stood Advocate and Solicitor to a date to be fixed. at 20 cases. Of these 20 cases, the hearings

54 QUALITY OF JUSTICE QUALITY OF JUSTICE

Significant Decisions of the Court of Appeal

Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd v Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte Ltd[2011] 4 SLR 381 By JLCs Germaine Boey and Seraphina Fong

In this case, the Court of Appeal clarified that (“Alteco”) should not be followed. Alteco the word “author” under the Copyright Act interpreted “author” to include a person who (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the Copyright Act”) made necessary arrangements or paid for the referred to natural persons and should not creation of a work. Authorship and ownership extend to corporate entities. Copyright law were distinct concepts. A work created by an was intended to encourage the creativity of employee was dependent on his lifespan even natural authors. A “qualified person” under if first ownership vested in the employer. The s 27 of the Copyright Act referred to a natural Court also found that the presumption under person only. Furthermore, the duration of s 131 of the Copyright Act was displaced when copyright protection had always been based the very question of authorship, and not merely on the author’s life expectancy. Corporate the identity of the author, was disputed. entities would enjoy perpetual monopoly over their works if they qualified as “authors”. This The respondent’s claim for copyright would not strike the right balance between the infringement failed because it could not interests of the author and the public. identify a human author or authors responsible for the compilation tables in its magazine. The Court also observed that the interpretation The Court also dismissed the respondent’s of “author” in Alteco Chemical Pte Ltd claim in passing off because the element of v Chong Yean Wah (trading as Yamayo misrepresentation was not proven. Stationery Manufacturer) [1995] 2 SLR(R) 915

56 Quality of Justice

Shadrake Alan v Attorney-General [2011] 3 SLR 778 By JLCs Justin Yeo and Calvin Liang

This case arose from an application by the represented the law in Singapore. This was Attorney-General to commit the appellant also preferred to the more stringent “clear for contempt of court on the ground of and present danger” test because the “real scandalising the judiciary (“scandalising risk” test paid more attention to the balance contempt”) in relation to 14 statements between the right to freedom of speech on contained in the book which he had authored. the one hand and its abuse on the other. The High Court had found the appellant in Additionally, the nature, tenor and thrust contempt of court for 11 of the impugned of Commonwealth case law and legislation statements and sentenced him to six were more consistent with the concept of fair weeks’ imprisonment and a fine of $20,000 criticism going towards liability as opposed (or, in default, two weeks’ imprisonment). to it being a separate defence. Thus, the court ought always to bear in mind the The Court of Appeal reiterated that following key question: did the impugned scandalising contempt was a public injury and statement constitute fair criticism; or did not a private tort. Its fundamental purpose it go on to cross the legal line by posing a was to ensure that public confidence in the real risk of undermining public confidence in administration of justice was not undermined. the administration of justice, in which case It was not intended to protect the dignity of it would constitute contempt? On the issue judges. Regarding the test for liability, the of sentencing, the Court also held that there Court of Appeal clarified that the “real risk” was no starting point of imprisonment for test and not the “inherent tendency” test the offence of scandalising contempt. The

57 sanction imposed would depend on the no interest in stifling legitimate debate. It precise facts and context of each case. was clear that debate on the death penalty as well as other areas of law would always Applying these principles, the Court of be open to all. However, when conduct Appeal found the appellant in contempt crossed the legal line and constituted for nine of the impugned statements. scandalising contempt, it was no longer Nonetheless, the appellant’s sentence was legitimate and a discount could not be affirmed because there was no reason to accorded to the contemnor for abusing his grant a sentencing discount – as the High right to free speech. Court had done – to signal that the court had

Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General [2011] 2 SLR 1189 By JLCs Debra Lam and Kenneth Wong

In 2008, the appellant was convicted of a capital under O 53 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R drug trafficking offence and sentenced to death. 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the Rules of Court”) together On 11 August 2009, he submitted a petition to with his application for the substantive reliefs the President for clemency under Article 22P of and dismissed the applications. The appeal was the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore subsequently dismissed by the Court of Appeal. (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) (“the Singapore Constitution”) but his petition was declined. On In the judgment, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA 21 July 2010, the appellant applied for leave to and V K Rajah JA clarified that the President had commence judicial review proceedings seeking no personal discretion in exercising the clemency declarations that: (i) under Article 22P, the power. Instead, he had to act on the advice of the clemency power was exercisable by the President Cabinet. The latter could not be held to the same acting in his discretion; (ii) the appellant should standard of impartiality and objectivity applicable be granted clemency; (iii) under Article 22P(2), to a court of law or a tribunal exercising a quasi- the appellant was entitled to disclosure of the judicial function and was entitled to take into materials sent to the Cabinet in connection with account public policy considerations and the his petition (“the Article 22P materials”); and (iv) legislative policy underlying the imposition of the there be an indefinite stay of execution of the death sentence. As regards counsel’s argument death sentence imposed on the appellant. The that the appellant had a legitimate expectation High Court heard the appellant’s application for that the President would exercise the clemency leave to commence judicial review proceedings power, the Court observed that an expectation

58 Quality of Justice

was only legitimate if founded upon a promise or Rules of Court, the court had no power to grant practice by a public authority. No such promise the declaratory relief sought by the appellant;* was made in this case. Further, counsel’s argument (ii) the clemency power was an extraordinary that there was a right to disclosure of the Article executive power exercised as an act of executive 22P materials was premised on the petitioner grace and not as a matter of legal right; and (iii) that having a right to petition for clemency and/or a being said, the clemency power was amenable to right to be heard during the clemency process. judicial review, as the requirement for the Article No such rights existed, and so there was no right 22P materials to be submitted to Cabinet for its of disclosure. consideration implied a constitutional duty on Cabinet’s part to consider the materials impartially The following observations made by the Chief and in good faith before advising the President. Justice are also worth noting: (i) under O53 of the

* O 53 r 1(1) of the Rules of Court has been amended such that an application for a mandatory order, prohibiting order or quashing order (“the principal application”) may include an application for a declaration if leave is granted for the principal application. This amendment came into effect on 1 May 2011, after the Court of Appeal rendered its judgment in Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General [2011] 2 SLR 1189 on 4 April 2011.

AJU v AJT [2011] 4 SLR 739 By AR Colin Seow and JLC Karin Lai

In this case, the Court of Appeal reversed The Court of Appeal held that the public the High Court’s decision to set aside an policy objection envisaged in Article 34(2)(b) international arbitration interim award on (ii) of the Model Law was not even engaged public policy grounds. At the hearing, the in the first place to justify the High Court’s High Court disagreed with the arbitral intervention in the arbitral tribunal’s findings tribunal’s finding in the interim award that a made in its award. As such, the High Court settlement agreement concluded between was wrong to have intervened and reopened the appellant and respondent was not the arbitral tribunal’s finding on the legality illegal. Accordingly, the interim award was of the settlement agreement on which the set aside pursuant to Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of interim award was based. the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“the Model Law”) In reversing the High Court’s decision, the as set out in the First Schedule to the Court of Appeal emphasised that s 19B(1) International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, of the IAA called for the court to give 2002 Rev Ed) (“the IAA”). deference to factual findings of arbitral tribunals. This meant that findings of fact

59 made in an award to which the IAA applied tribunal made an error of law in that regard. The (“IAA awards”) were binding on the parties Court of Appeal further took the opportunity and could not be reopened except where there to clarify that there was no difference between was fraud, breach of natural justice or some the thresholds for invoking public policy under other recognised vitiating factor. It was held Article 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model Law (which that the High Court was not entitled to reject dealt with the setting aside of IAA awards) and the arbitral tribunal’s findings and substitute its under s 31(4)(b) of the IAA (which dealt with own findings for them. the refusal of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards). In clarifying this point, the Court In its judgment, the Court of Appeal also of Appeal emphasised that the legislative explained that since it was a question of law purpose of the IAA was to treat all IAA awards what the public policy of Singapore was, an as having an “international focus”, just as all arbitral award could be set aside if the arbitral foreign arbitral awards were, by definition, treated as having the same.

Mohammad Ashik bin Aris v Public Prosecutor [2011] 4 SLR 802 By JLC Tan Zhongshan

This appeal was a direct challenge to the legality In a separate case in 2010, a High Court of the procedures used by the Health Sciences Judge had remarked, obiter, that the HSA Authority (“the HSA”) to test urine for the procedures might not be in compliance with the presence of controlled or specified drugs. The requirements stipulated by s 31(4)(b) of the MDA. consumption of these drugs was an offence This present case was brought before the High pursuant to s 8(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act Court as a test case in order to obtain a definitive (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”). In order ruling on this point. At first instance, the Judge to facilitate the prosecution of this offence, the held that the HSA procedures complied with presence of positive results from two urine tests s 31(4)(b) of the MDA. conducted under s 31(4)(b) of the MDA would trigger a presumption that the person whose The appellant’s appeal against the Judge’s ruling urine was tested had, in contravention of s 8(b), in was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that fact consumed the relevant drugs. the phrase “a urine test shall be conducted ...

60 Quality of Justice

by ... an analyst” in s 31(4)(b) of the MDA did not The HSA analysts had a meaningful and effective necessarily mean that the person who “conducts” means of supervision over the entire process the urine test had to personally carry out, or without having to be continuously present or personally supervise in real-time, all the steps having to carry out each step in the process. The which constitute the urine test. The appellant’s division of labour between laboratory officers argument that an analyst had to be continuously and analysts was an efficient arrangement which present throughout the urine-testing process nonetheless provided a sufficient safeguard for was not supported by the purpose of s 31(4)(b). accused persons.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Hashu Dhalomal Shahdadpuri and another [2011] 3 SLR 1186 By AR Terence Tan

This appeal raised the novel and complex through missing trader intra-community issue of whether it was plain and obvious (“MTIC”) fraud and to conceal the fraud and that the appellant’s claim was a claim for its proceeds from the appellant. unpaid output tax and/or a claim arising out of acts jure imperii (state acts of a sovereign In allowing the appeal and setting aside or governmental character) and/or involving the trial judge’s decision to strike out the the enforcement of a foreign governmental appellant’s claim, the Court of Appeal held interest so as to contravene the revenue rule that it was not plain and obvious that the and be unenforceable in the Singapore court. appellant’s claim was a claim for unpaid output tax and/or a claim arising out of acts The appellant was an entity of the UK jure imperii and/or involving the enforcement Government who was responsible for, amongst of a foreign governmental interest. Instead, the other things, the collection and management appellant’s claim could also be interpreted as of value added tax in the UK. The appellant a claim for the recovery of input tax which the claimed that the respondents (acting in appellant had been deceived into reimbursing concert with other parties) had conspired an exporter who was an innocent actor in the by unlawful means to defraud the appellant chain of transactions that was conceived as

61 part of the conspiracy to defraud the appellant. which it had paid to the exporter pursuant to The Court of Appeal further found that whether the latter’s claim for reimbursement of input or not the appellant’s claim would be contrary tax, this still raised the question of whether to the revenue rule was an issue for our court to the appellant’s claim could legitimately be decide at a full trial, and not at the interlocutory characterised as an action to enforce the striking-out stage. The Court of Appeal was sovereign rights or interests of a foreign state. also of the view that although there was no This was a novel and complex issue of law doubt that the appellant’s central interest in which merited fuller consideration. bringing this action was to recover the money

Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 1279 By JLC Jeremy Yeo

The respondent in this case lodged a complaint public regulators from being deterred from against an advocate and solicitor, but after the carrying out their regulatory functions by the process of inquiry, the Council of the Law Society possibility of adverse cost orders. However, costs of Singapore (“the Law Society”) dismissed the might still be ordered against the Law Society complaint. The respondent applied to a High where it had carried out its public function in Court Judge to review the Council’s decision bad faith or in a grossly derelict manner. In the under s 96(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap present case, the Court of Appeal held that 161, 2001 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”) and was partially even if the High Court Judge had applied the successful. The Law Society was ordered to pay Baxendale-Walker principle as the starting 50% of the respondent’s costs in the review. The point, she might well have come to the same Law Society appealed against this order of costs. conclusion on the issue of costs, having regard to the conduct of counsel for the Law Society. The Court of Appeal, following the case of Baxendale-Walker v Law Society [2008] 1 WLR Having made these findings, the Court of Appeal 426, decided that where the Law Society was went on to decide that it had no jurisdiction to appearing in litigation as a public regulator hear the appeal in any event as there was no exercising disciplinary functions, the starting statutory right of appeal from reviews heard by a point would be that no costs order would be Judge under ss 95, 96 and 97 of the LPA. The Law made against it. This approach would prevent Society’s appeal was therefore dismissed.

62 Quality of Justice

Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR 1205; Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecution and another matter [2011] 4 SLR 791 By JLC Jeremy Yeo

The appellants were convicted of murder by three statements made by the victim’s husband, the High Court. Before the Court of Appeal, the which should have been disclosed at an earlier Prosecution changed its position to argue that the stage of the proceedings. second appellant was present at the scene of the murder but was only guilty of robbery with hurt. In The Prosecution subsequently filed a criminal the course of investigations, several statements motion seeking clarification of its disclosure duties. containing confessions were taken from the second The Court of Appeal held that it had an inherent appellant in breach of the procedural requirements jurisdiction to hear applications for clarification. in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev However, it would only do so if the case contained Ed) and the Police General Orders. In addition, a patent ambiguity and the clarification requested the Prosecution did not disclose three statements was genuine, necessary in the public interest made by the victim’s husband until a late stage of and made within a reasonable time. The Court the trial. These statements said that there was only clarified that the Prosecution’s duty of disclosure one intruder at the scene, which supported the extended only to material within the Prosecution’s second appellant’s alibi defence. knowledge. The Prosecution had no duty to search for additional material. The Court stated The Court of Appeal found that the procedurally that this duty of disclosure was both institutional irregular confessions taken from the second and personal. Accordingly, where an individual appellant should have been excluded from prosecutor knew of material and a case where evidence as being more prejudicial than probative. such material should be disclosed, he was under This, coupled with the unreliability of his other a duty to arrange for disclosure of that material confessions and the lack of other objective evidence regardless of whether he was directly assigned to linking him to the crime scene, led to the second that case. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, the appellant’s appeal being allowed. In addition, the Court stated that its decision in Muhammad bin Court observed that the Prosecution was under a Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR duty, ethical if not legal, to disclose certain types of 1205 would not affect the operation of any ground unused material to the Defence. This included the for non-disclosure recognised by any law.

63 Tan Chong Koay and another v Monetary Authority of Singapore [2011] 4 SLR 348 By JLC Jeremy Yeo

The first appellant founded the second purpose was to bolster the year-end valuation appellant – a company in the fund management of certain funds holding UET shares managed business. Between 29 and 31 December 2004, by the second appellant and a related company. the appellants purchased a number of shares in The Court of Appeal held that the appellants’ United Envirotech Ltd (“UET”) through a remisier acceptance of genuine “sell” offers made by by accepting “sell” bids placed by independent independent investors did not mean that their sellers on the Singapore Exchange’s board. All purchases reflected genuine demand as they except one of these purchases were made very were not motivated by legitimate investment near to the close of trading each day. Following purposes. In the light of the relevant aggravating these purchases, the closing price of UET shares factors and the policy purpose of the SFA, rose about 17% from 27 December 2004 to 31 the Court of Appeal upheld the civil penalty December 2004. imposed on the appellants by the High Court.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the High The Court also observed that the structure of Court’s finding that the appellants had, in s 197 of the SFA suggested that s 197(1) imposed violation of the second limb of s 197(1)(b) of the strict liability unless otherwise stated. However, Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev no final view was expressed on the mens rea Ed) (“the SFA”), intended to set the price of UET requirements of that section. shares for the end of the year 2004. The primary

Tjong Very Sumito and others v Chan Sing En and others [2011] 4 SLR 580 By JLC Jeremy Yeo

The appellants appealed against the decision Singapore. In addition, he found that the first of a High Court Judge who ordered them to appellant was, in addition to being ordinarily pay security for costs. The Judge had found resident outside Singapore, also ordinarily that they were ordinarily resident outside resident in Singapore. The Judge found

64 Quality of Justice

that in such a case he had the jurisdiction to that the court would have jurisdiction to order make an order for security for costs under security for costs against such a person under O 23 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 O 23 r 1(1)(a) of the Rules of Court, which referred Rev Ed) (“the Rules of Court”). expressly to the situation where a plaintiff was ordinarily resident out of Singapore’s jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal decided that it was The Court proceeded to uphold the Judge’s possible for a person to be ordinarily resident finding that the appellants were ordinarily in more than one jurisdiction and therefore to resident in Indonesia and affirmed the exercise be ordinarily resident both inside and outside of his discretion to order security for costs. The Singapore. The Court of Appeal also held appellants’ appeal was therefore dismissed.

Recent Amendments to the Rules of Court and the Practice Directions

In 2011, a number of amendments were made to the Court under the International Child to the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Abduction Act 2010 and an application of Ed) (“the Rules of Court”) and the Supreme disgorgement against a third party under the Court Practice Directions (“the Practice new s 236L of the Securities and Futures Act, Directions”). respectively.

Amendments made to the Rules of Court There were other significant amendments, were gazetted on 21 February 2011, 28 April including amendments to Order 53 and 2011, 29 April 2011 and 9 September 2011. Order 62. Order 53 now allows declarations to Some of the amendments were necessitated be prayed for in judicial review proceedings by amendments to the Legal Profession Act in addition to prerogative orders. It also (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) and the Securities and provides for a procedure to allow an applicant Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed), as well to recover damages or other relief, if the as the enactment of the International Child applicant can prove that he has a valid cause Abduction Act 2010 (Act 27/2010). of action that would have entitled him to the relevant relief if the relief had been claimed The amendments resulted in two new Orders in a separate action. Order 62 clarifies that being enacted – Orders 102 and 103 which set service of documents may be carried out by out the procedure relating to an application way of electronic means. The amendments

65 to Orders 1, 5 and 12 of the Rules of Court on 30 June 2011. Most significantly, it facilitates following amendments to the Legal Profession the introduction of “paper-less” Court of Act and the Legal Profession (Prescribed Fees) Appeal hearings in which soft copy, as opposed Rules (Cap 161, R 12, 2010 Rev Ed) were also to hard copy, documents would be referred to notable. These amendments allow an officer during the hearing. It also provides guidelines of a company, a limited liability partnership, for the sale of immovable property by the sheriff an unincorporated association (other than a and permits the use of presentation slides for partnership or a registered trade union) or a all proceedings before the High Court, Court registered trade union (as the case may be), of Appeal and Court of Three Judges, subject to represent that company, limited liability to the approval of the Court. partnership, unincorporated association or registered trade union in proceedings in the On 12 December 2011, Practice Directions Subordinate Courts. Amendment No. 3 of 2011 clarified,inter alia, that hard copy documents tendered Practice Directions Amendment No. 1 of 2011 to the Court may be printed on one or pertains to applications for admission as an both sides, establishing timelines for the advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court filing of documents for preliminary inquiries and is consequential to amendments to the or committal hearings, and stipulating the Legal Profession Act and the enactment procedure for applications under the Mental of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed). 2011 (S 244/2011). It contains provisions for deadlines for filing and service, procedure Since the introduction of the electronic Rules for electronic applications, and prescribed of Court and the electronic Practice Directions, fees for admission applications. the Supreme Court has been capturing all amendments to the Rules of Court and the This was followed by Practice Directions Practice Directions online and in real time. Amendment No. 2 of 2011, which took effect

66 ACCESSIBILITY TO THE COURTS ACCESSIBILITY TO THE COURTS

Public Outreach and Engagement organising the 21st General Paper (GP) As a public institution, the Supreme Court Seminar. The Supreme Court hosted some is dedicated to meeting the needs of court 400 GP teachers from junior colleges, users with an emphasis on accessibility. In centralised institutions and Integrated 2011, the Supreme Court conducted public Programme schools. Introduced in 2001, the education and awareness programmes that Seminar is a national education platform for focused on the roles of the Judiciary and the GP teachers to stay abreast of current affairs Singapore legal system. in Singapore. Jointly organised by MOE’s Curriculum Planning and Development In the course of the year, the Supreme Court Division and the Academy of Singapore welcomed some 13,000 local and overseas Teachers, the 21st GP Seminar presented an visitors, including law practitioners and overview of the Judiciary and legal system visitors from other Judiciaries. More than in Singapore. half of these visitors were students and teachers. The visits allowed the visitors to The Seminar’s keynote speaker was former gain an insight into Singapore’s legal history Attorney-General and current Dean of the and the work of the Supreme Court. Singapore Institute of Legal Education, Professor Walter Woon, who engaged the In its effort to reach out to a wider audience, participants in a dialogue session entitled the Supreme Court continued to engage “Crime and Punishment in the Singapore its educational partners to conduct guided Legal System”. tours of the Supreme Court. One such partner is the Singapore History Consultants, The GP Seminar was well-received. an experienced tour agency conducting Participants provided feedback that they heritage walks and guided tours of places of would share with their students what they interest. had learnt about Singapore’s legal system and the Supreme Court. In 2011, the Supreme Court also collaborated with the Ministry of Education (MOE) in

68 STAFF AND ORGANISATION STAFF AND ORGANISATION

Getting ready for the Treetop Walk

Cohesion Day On 6 October 2011, the Supreme Court organised its inaugural Cohesion Day. Staff of the Supreme Court went for a three kilometre nature ramble at the HSBC Treetop Walk. The Treetop Walk is a free-standing suspension bridge about 25 metres high and 250 metres long. Spanning Bukit Peirce and Bukit Kalang, the two highest points of MacRitchie Reservoir, the walk gives a bird’s eye view of Ending the day on a high note – the Supreme Court management team survives the go-kart the community of plants and animals in the challenge forest canopy.

The Supreme Court staff appreciated the Corporate Challenge opportunity to take their eyes off their On 11 March 2011, 53 members of the computer screens and get to know their Supreme Court’s management team colleagues better. Besides promoting inter- attended a day-long Corporate Challenge at departmental interaction, the Treetop Walk Snow City and Kartright Speedway. was also in keeping with the Singapore Government’s vision of promoting healthy The team exchanged ideas on how to improve lifestyles for civil servants. the Supreme Court’s work processes during a

70 Staff and Organisation

The Honourable the Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Registrar Foo Chee Hock, Deputy Registrar Audrey Lim and the winners of Staff Awards 2011 brainstorming and presentation session. This Staff Awards was followed by a team-building exercise A number of Supreme Court staff were proud which required the management team to recipients of various prestigious awards in 2011. think innovatively and out of the box. Four members of the staff were conferred In the afternoon, the management team National Day awards in recognition of their proceeded to Kartright Speedway for the contributions and service: highlight of the day, go-kart racing. The management team was divided into smaller • Ms Goh Cheng Hsien received the teams to compete against one another. Commendation Medal Each team was required to leverage on its • Mr Ju Toong Cheong received the Efficiency members’ strengths to formulate a winning Medal race strategy. • Mr S Raventhiran and Ms Kamisah Bte Mohd Ibrahim each received the Long The activities provided opportunities for Service Medal closer interaction amongst fellow colleagues. It also helped the management team forge In addition, Mr Chia Kum Khuen and Mr closer bonds of friendship. The day ended on Shabab s/o Ali Qadir were presented with the a high note with pizzas, drinks and laughter PS21 Star Service Award for their commitment all around. to service excellence.

71 Participants at the conclusion of Walk the Talk 2011 Staff Welfare Activities During the course of the year, a variety of as the “Eat with Your Family Day” which was welfare activities were organised to engage held on 27 May 2011. Staff were encouraged the staff. to enjoy a meal with their families and were allowed to leave 30 minutes earlier on that day. There were events promoting healthy The Supreme Court also organised a “Bring lifestyles, such as lunchtime health talks Our Kids to Work Day” which included games and a fun and educational trek around Fort and activities such as ice-cream making at the Canning Park. Other events which promoted Supreme Court Auditorium. Other staff welfare teamwork and encouraged camaraderie activities included the distribution of fruits and included the Dinner and Dance 2011 as well festive snacks, as well as sports and games for as a Family Day at the Marina Barrage. These staff to bond with their colleagues and cultivate events were organised by the Judiciary active lifestyles. Recreation Club for staff of both the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts. Observance ceremonies were also held for National Day and Public Service Week, for In line with its goal to promote work-life staff to reaffirm their loyalty to the nation balance and a family-friendly environment, and their commitment to the ideals of the the Supreme Court supported initiatives such Public Service.

72 Staff and Organisation

Corporate Calendar 2011

7 Jan Opening of the Legal Year / Opening of the Legal Year Dinner 12 Jan Opening of the Legal Year Staff Lunch 17 – 20 Jan 21st ISO 9001:2008 Internal Audit 22 Jan Judiciary Recreation Club Paintball Competition 11 Mar Corporate Challenge 15 Apr First Annual ISO 9000 Surveillance Audit 19 Apr Staff Workplan Seminar 20 May Public Service Week Observance Ceremony 27 May Eat with Your Family Day 10 Jun Bring Our Kids to Work Day 6 Jul Walk the Talk 18 Jul Dinner for the Judiciary & Forum of Senior Counsel 22 Jul Judiciary Recreation Club Dinner and Dance 5 Aug National Day Observance Ceremony 11 – 12 Aug International Conference on Electronic Litigation 27 Aug Mass Call 6 Oct Cohesion Day 14 Oct Legal Colloquium 19 Oct Customer Service Conference 18 Nov LASCO Tea 25 Nov Movie Night 29 Nov Health Screening Exercise

73 Supreme Court Organisation Chart

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGES & JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS

REGISTRAR

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

SENIOR ASSISTANT REGISTRARS & ASSISTANT REGISTRARS

JUSTICES’ LAW CLERKS

SENIOR DIRECTOR SENIOR DIRECTOR (Personnel) SENIOR DIRECTOR (FFPD) SENIOR DIRECTOR (CCD) (Office Mgmt & Security)

DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR (CSD) (FFPD) (Compliance)

DY DIRECTOR (CCD)

SR AD SR AD SR AD SR AD SR AD (Office (Procurement / (Admin) (Security) (FFPD) Mgmt) Compliance)

AD(HR) ADs ADs (Office LIBRARIAN (CCD) AD(Admin) Mgmt)

SR HEADS SR SR HEAD HEAD (CCD) HEAD HEAD (Procurement) (Finance) (HR) (Security) HEADS HEADS (CCD) HEAD HEADS (Bldg Mgmt) (HR&Admin) (Security) Legend

AD Assistant Director Enf Enforcement Admin Administration FFPD Finance & Financial Policy Bldg Mgmt Building Management Directorate CCD Corporate Communications HR Human Resource Department KM Knowledge Management CISD Computer Information LD Legal Directorate Systems Department LMD Learning and Management CPD Corporate Planning Directorate Department CSD Corporate Services Directorate Office Mgmt Office Management DTS Digital Transcription Services OS Originating Summons DT Sect Disciplinary Tribunal S&I Specialised & Insolvency Secretariat SLS Statistics & Learning Section DY Deputy SR Senior

SENIOR SENIOR SENIOR DIRECTOR SENIOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR (LD) (CPD) (LMD) (CISD)

DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR (LD) (CPD) (CISD)

DY DIRECTOR (LD)

SR AD SR AD SR AD (Criminal (S&I HEARING SUPPORT (Civil) Matters OS/ MANAGERS HEADS MANAGER & Enf) SLS) (Interpreters) (DTS)

KM LEGAL OFFICER ANALYST AD (LMD)

E-LEARNING SR CHIEF SR ANALYST/ HEAD BAILIFF HEAD PROGRAMMER (Civil) (SHERIFF) (SLS) HEAD POLICY HEAD / SR BUSINESS ANALYST HEADS HEAD HEAD / MANAGER MEDIA CASE ANALYST / SR CASE / CASE / SR CASE (DT Sect) MANAGER DEVELOPMENT MANAGER MANAGER MANAGER (Diary SPECIALIST (Civil Trials & (Criminal (S&I/OS) Trials & Management) Appeals) Appeals) Staff Photos REGISTRAR, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SENIOR ASSISTANT REGISTRARS & ASSISTANT REGISTRARS

01 Ms Wendy Yap Peng Hoon 11 Mr Terence Tan Zhong Wei 21 Ms Ong Luan Tze 02 Ms Audrey Lim Yoon Cheng 12 Ms Eunice Chua Hui Han 22 Ms Sngeeta Devi d/o Surannad 03 Mr Foo Chee Hock 13 Ms Elaine Liew Ling Wei 23 Mr Jeyendran s/o Jeyapal 04 Ms Teh Hwee Hwee 14 Ms Chee Min Ping Not in Picture 05 Ms Cornie Ng Teng Teng 15 Mr Shaun Leong Li Shiong Mr Yeong Zee Kin 06 Ms Karen Tan Teck Ping 16 Ms Ang Feng Qian Mr David Lee Yeow Wee 07 Ms Janice Wong Shi Hui 17 Ms Ang Ching Pin Mr Nathaniel Khng Yong-Ern 08 Ms Tan Wen Hsien 18 Mr Tan Sze Yao Ms Then Ling 09 Mr Jordan Tan Zhengxian 19 Mr Kevin Tan Eu Shan Ms Elaine Chew Yi-Ling 10 Mr Paul Chan Wei Sern 20 Mr Louis Ng Shi Zheng

19 20 18 16 21 22 23 15 17 10 09 11 12 13 08 14 06 07

01 02 03 04 05

76 JUSTICES’ LAW CLERKS

01 Ms Amy Seow Wai Peng 13 Mr Alexander Sim Li’An 25 Mr Tham Lijing 02 Ms Ruth Yeo Su An 14 Mr Elgin Tay Wei Xiong 26 Mr Keith Han Guanyuan 03 Ms Crystal Tan Yan Shi 15 Mr Terence Ang Ming Sheng 27 Mr Joshua Lim Yong En 04 Ms Chua Shirin 16 Mr Lim Sing Yong 28 Mr Andrew Tan Shao Weng 05 Ms Germaine Boey Yi Ling 17 Mr Koo Zhi Xuan 29 Mr Seow Tzi Yang 06 Ms Monica Chong Wan Yee 18 Mr Kelvin Kow Weijie 30 Mr Jerald Foo Chuan Min 07 Ms Choo Yi Ming 19 Mr Jeremy Yeo Shenglong 31 Mr Colin Seow Fu Hong 08 Ms Aysuria Chang Su-Ya 20 Mr Ethan Tan Boon Hua 32 Mr Colin Liew Wey-Ren 09 Ms Debra Lam Qian Yi 21 Mr Rajaram Vikram Raja Not in Picture 10 Mr Tan Zhongshan 22 Ms Sarah Shi Pei-Yi Mr Evans Ng Hian Pheng 11 Ms Smriti Sriram 23 Mr Russell Low Tzeh Shyian 12 Mr Justin Yeo Rong Wei 24 Mr Calvin Liang Hanwen Ms Jurena Chan Pei Shan

31 32 25 26 27 28 29 30 24 20 21 15 16 23 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 10 22

06 01 02 03 04 05 07 08 09

77 CORPORATE SERVICES DIRECTORATE

09 13 10 11 12 14

02 03 04 01 05 06 07 08

01 Mr Albert Fan Chee Peng 08 Mr Tay Wee Boon Not in Picture 02 Mr Jack Lim Soon Kok 09 Ms Fionn Chua Yee Wai Mr Chia Kum Khuen 03 Mr Ong Lian Shin 10 Ms Lee Kam Yoke Mr Max Tan Lee Kien 04 Ms Pam Lim Chui Chui 11 Ms Kate Lim Kai Ling Mr Muhammad Hakim Bin 05 Mrs Selina Khor Ching Kek 12 Ms Jessie Teo Cheng Cheng Salim 06 Ms Katy Tay Wei Ling 13 Ms Wong Loo Seng 07 Mr Jeremy Tang Wei Liang 14 Ms Serene Lim Chau Ti

COURTS SECTION

09 10 12 13 15 16 18 11 14 17

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

10 01 Mrs Yong Mei June Ms Koh Beng Yan Not in Picture 02 Ms Teresa Lee Lie Choo 11 Ms Oh Soh Wan Mr Raveendran s/o Sundram Pillai 03 Ms Carol Yap Wee Loo 12 Mrs Adelia Sim-Tay Tzu Ching Ms Agnes Yao Hui 13 Ms Ginny Tham Lye Leng 04 Ms Patricia See Lay Wah Ms Haryati Binte Sungit 14 Ms Norashidah Binte Laily 05 Ms Noriani Binte Masat Ms Jane Tan Guan Noi Ms Cylin Chua Swee Lin 06 Ms Ramaiah Sandhakumali 15 Ms Leong Yu Fun Mr Eugene Chng Eng Hai 07 Ms Leana Lim Kim Tee 16 Ms Anne Sim Hoon Kim Ms Arneda Binte Jasman 08 Ms Da’ahliah Binte Samsuri 17 Ms Susan Ho Soo Fun Ms Fiona Lau May Lian 09 Mrs Tan Ser Kim 18 18 Ms Trudy Tay Lee Hoon Ms Alice Chua Tuan Yong Mrs Quek Swee Peng Ms Myra Chia Kam Sow 78 Ms Ainon Binte Samsuddin COURT ORDERLIES

10 11 09 12 05 06 07 08

01 02 03 04

01 Mr Jonathan Lim Boon Tay 08 Mr Bala Murugan s/o Rasalingam Not in Picture 02 Mr Ishak Bin Ali 09 Mr Mohamad Arshad Bin Jaffar Mr Ahmad Hassin Bin Salim 03 Mr A Subramaniam Arunasalam 10 Mr Iskandar Bin Ramly Mr Mohamed Ariff Bin Mohd Esa 04 Mr Edwin Tan Jui Meng 11 Mr Simon Sim Boon Hee Mr Kamarudin Bin Ismail 05 Mr Terence Teo Tow Kwong 12 Mr Zulkarnain Bin Mohamed Salleh Mr Titus Low Chung Kong 06 Mr Gabriel s/o V M S Nathan Mr Azhar Bin Johari 07 Mr Jimmy Ho Weng Fu Mr L Tamil Selvan Mr Jasman Bin Senen

LIBRARY

04

01 02 03

01 Ms Junaidah Bee Binte Abu Bakar Not in Picture 02 Ms Seah Poh Geok Ms Tik Lee Hwa 03 Ms Koh Swee Ngor 04 Mr Mohammad Fairul Bin Ahmad Suliman

79 FINANCE & FINANCIAL POLICY DIRECTORATE

01 02 03 04 05

01 Ms Goh Cheng Hsien 02 Ms Santhakumari d/o Moniandy 03 Mr Oh Chong Onn 04 Mr Henry Seet 05 Ms Sally Yeo Kim Lian

CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTORATE

07 06 04 05 08

01 02 03

01 Mr Mark Cheong Yew Kay 05 Ms Bridgitte Lee Jiahui 02 Mr Jam Chee Chong 06 Ms Miruna d/o Ranjan 03 Mr Daniel Lim Chwee Yong 07 Ms Luenne Angela Choa Cheh Peng 04 Ms Elaine Tan Huay Ling 08 Ms Joyce Ho Sow Chue

80 LEGAL DIRECTORATE, CIVIL TRIALS AND APPEALS SECTION

09 17 10 11 14 15 16 12 13

03 04 05 06 01 02 07 08

01 Mr S Raventhiran 08 Mr Jailani Bin Jayos 15 Ms Rameeza Binte Haja Maideen 02 Mr Harry Lim 09 Ms Vanessa Chan Yoke Leng 16 Ms Irene Boey Suay Leng 03 Mr Paul Lee Gek Boon 10 Ms Rashida Binte Mohammad Yatim 17 Mr Bennett Tan Chee Leong 04 Ms Carol Liew Lin Lin 11 Ms Nur Alfishahrin Mohd Not in Picture 05 Ms Jasmine Ong Bee Soon 12 Ms Nancy Loong Peck Nyuk 06 Ms Ng Ah What 13 Ms Kamisah Binte Mohamed Ibrahim Ms Pam Ong 07 Mr Khoo Seng Hang 14 Ms Jarinah Binte Mustafa Mr Suleiman Bin Shariman Ms Jasvier Kaur d/o Najar Singh

LEGAL DIRECTORATE, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND HEARING SUPPORT SECTION

11 12 08 09 10 13 14 07

04 05 01 02 03 06

01 Ms Khairun Atika Binte Kamsan 08 Ms Saimah Binte Yayah Not in Picture 02 Ms Tan Li Ping 09 Mr Shabab s/o Ali Qadir Ms Angela Philomena Chopard 03 Ms Carol Liew Lin Lin 10 Mr Yeo Boon Tat Raymond Ms Yogeswari d/o N Vadivellu 04 Ms Jasmine Ong Bee Soon 11 Mr Mohamad Hisham Bin Samsudin Mr Mohamed Azhar Bin Haji Said 05 Mr Noah Chan Yee Loong 12 Ms Carmen Yeo Li Er 06 Ms Sandiraleka d/o Kannandan 13 Ms Rahmania Binte Ali 07 Ms S Vasuki 14 Ms Rammiah Supuletchimi

81 LEGAL DIRECTORATE, CRIMINAL TRIALS AND APPEALS AND ENFORCEMENT SECTION

07 09 11 08 10

01 02 03 04 05 06

01 Mr Ho Nyuk Chang 07 Mr Dave Lee Chun Leong Not in Picture 02 Mr Kathiarasan s/o Supramaniam 08 Mr Jimmy Liew Chee Heng Mr Wong Chee Kin 03 Mr Carol Liew Lin Lin 09 Ms T Ananthi Mr Abdul Rahim Bin Sanoosi 04 Ms Jasmine Ong Bee Soon 10 Mr Yang Rashidi Bin Samsudin Mr Zulkarnain Bin Yusoff 05 Ms Harlina Binte Tambi 11 Mr Muhammad Bin Mohamed Ali 06 Mr Ju Toong Cheong

LEGAL DIRECTORATE, ORIGINATING SUMMONS SECTION AND STATISTICS AND LEARNING SECTION

10 12 07 08 09 11

02 03 04 06 01 05

01 Ms Serene Chong Ching Yuet 07 Ms Lee Kwee Ngor Not in Picture 02 Ms Chang Siew Teen 08 Ms Wong Yen Peng Ms Molly Teh Meow Leng 03 Ms Carol Liew Lin Lin 08 Ms Haryati Binte Jumahat Ms Deviki s/o Rengupillai Ramiah 04 Ms Jasmine Ong Bee Soon 10 Ms Norizzah Binte Abdul Aziz Ms Santhi d/o Pannirselvam 05 Ms Noraizah Bte Hamzah 11 Ms Rani d/o Ram Hotechand Ms Irnawati Binte Akub 06 Ms Lee Mei Teng 12 Ms June Teo Swee Choon Ms Patsy Neo Geok Ling Ms Ismaniza Binte Mohamad Ibrahim

82 CORPORATE PLANNING DIRECTORATE

22 23 25 26 18 19 20 21 24 12 13 14 16 09 10 11 15 17

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

01 Ms Nooreini Bte Atan 12 Ms Geeta d/o Vellu 23 Ms Ng Lian Hua 02 Ms Lim Puay Siang 13 Ms Nurul Sultana Bte Ali 24 Ms Marina Wang Meng Si 03 Mr Lim Cher Yeow Ahamed 25 Ms Nurfarhana Binte Mohamed Rehan 04 Mr Yahya Bin Abu Hassan 14 Ms Seah Wei Chun 26 Mr Derrick Siew Yew Kheong 05 Mr Chong Hoong Sang 15 Ms Soh Hui San Not in Picture 16 06 Mr Masilamany Gnanaraj Ms Wong Yin Ling Mr Daing Mohamed Farhan Bin Hashim s/o M Jesudasan 17 Ms Adlin Sandhora Binte Bahar Ms Alamelu 07 Ms Toh Bee Chuan 18 Mr Chris Teo Guo Wei 08 Ms Rageswari d/o Suppiah 19 Ms Tong Wai Yee Mr Ang Boon Kiong 09 Ms Mariana Bte Osman 20 Ms Vera Eu Lai Yi 10 Ms Tan Jinhe 21 Ms Leong Yuan Hong 11 Ms Liu Chee Kwan 22 Ms Yvonne Leung Shun Yee

LEARNING & MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

01 02 03

01 Ms Yeh Hui Teeng 02 Mr Ravi Prakash 03 Mr Ling Chih Kang

83 COMPUTER & INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT

09 10 07 08 11

01 02 03 04 05 06

01 Mr Ray Goh Seow Lye 07 Ms Tan Hong Ean Not in Picture 02 Mr Chang Chee Young 08 Ms Stella Kong Mei Lai Mr Andy Goh Joo Ping 03 Mr Leong Woon Loong 09 Ms Aileen Choo Ann Mei Mr Lim Seow Beng 04 Mr Patrick Ng Chong Jin 10 Ms Melissa Lim Mei Ping Mr Derrick Tan Eng Chu 05 Mr Allen Tan Yean Hum 11 Ms Jasmine Lai Siew Ling 06 Mr Daren Seah Kee Yim

84 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Editorial Committee Assistant Registrar Janice Wong Assistant Registrar Paul Chan Assistant Registrar Elaine Liew Luenne Angela Choa Miruna Ranjan Jam Chee Chong Mark Cheong

In Consultation with Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong Registrar Foo Chee Hock and the Registry

With Warmest Appreciation to All who have contributed to this publication 1 Supreme Court Lane Singapore 178879 www.supremecourt.gov.sg