ANNUAL REPORT 2010 CONTENTS
VISION, MISSION AND VALUES 01
FOREWORDS 03
CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION 09
SIGNIFICANT EVENTS 13 • Opening of the Legal Year • Mass Call • International Agreements • Inaugural LASCO Award
THE SUPREME COURT BENCH 19 • Changes to the Bench • Judges’ Profile • Judges’ Participation in Local and Overseas Events 2010
INTERNATIONAL PROFILE 31 • The Middle Templar profiles the Supreme Court and its Building • Rankings in International Surveys • Overseas Conferences, Attachments and Speaking Engagements • Visits by Distinguished Guests
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 39 • Supreme Court Staff Workplan Seminar • Legal Colloquium • Case Management Officer Scheme • Learning and Management Department & Hearing Support Group • Organisational Accolades
TIMELINESS OF JUSTICE 45 • Workload Statistics • Waiting Periods • Caseload and Disposal Relating to Disciplinary Proceedings in 2010
QUALITY OF JUSTICE 53 • Significant Decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Court of 3 Judges • Electronic Practice Directions and Electronic Rules of Court • New Amendments to the Practice Directions and Rules of Court
ACCESSIBILITY TO THE COURTS 63
STAFF AND ORGANISATION 65 • Corporate Challenge • Learning Day • Staff Welfare Activities • Staff Awards 2010 • Corporate Calendar 2010 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 FOREWORDS FOREWORD BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE
electronic discovery practice direction (“the e-discovery PD”) – now Part IVA of the Practice Directions – was in force. The e-discovery PD provides a set of guidelines and best practices to aid litigants in handling the ever-increasing volume of electronic documents. In the coming months, we will press ahead with introducing similar guidelines and best practices to facilitate the presentation of electronic documents in the Court of Appeal, and at the same time, we hope to reduce significantly the amount of paper that is generated for each appeal.
On a related note, our use of information The year 2010 saw further progress in the technology in court administration and court administration of justice. In addition to our procedures continues to attract international maintaining critical benchmarks for clearance attention. In 2010, the Supreme Court rates and waiting periods for matters to be received delegates from 89 jurisdictions – heard, the 2010 Rule of Law Index published surpassing the last notable peak of 72 by the World Justice Project ranked Singapore jurisdictions recorded in 2008 – who were first for access to civil justice among all the interested to find out how we manage the countries surveyed. The Supreme Court has Supreme Court so efficiently. We also signed also introduced and refined a number of a landmark Memorandum of Understanding innovations to ease the burden of those who with the Supreme Court of New South Wales have to use our services. to work closely and expeditiously to give opinions about what the law of each other’s One example would be our fully-searchable jurisdiction is on a particular issue that is electronic versions of the Supreme Court submitted to the court; this procedure will Practice Directions (“the Practice Directions”) allow Singapore courts to avoid getting the and the Rules of Court to make it easier for law of New South Wales wrong and vice users to access these materials. These have versa. Even our court building was featured also been made available as electronic books in a US publication called ‘Retrospective of which can be downloaded and read on Courthouse Design 2001 – 2010’ published mobile phones and tablets. The year 2010 by the National Center for State Courts. was also the first complete year in which the
04 In June, the Supreme Court Bench welcomed leading thereto, and which will also the appointments of Dr Philip Nalliah Pillai, coordinate and oversee a new scheme of Mr Quentin Loh Sze-On and Mr Steven compulsory continuing professional Chong Horng Siong as Judges of the High development for the legal profession and the Court. Prior to their appointments, Justice Foreign Practitioners Examination. Pillai, Justice Loh and Justice Chong served as Judicial Commissioners, displaying a firm The Supreme Court has launched its two- commitment to the application of the rule of year staff work-plan to ensure that all staff law without fear or favour and infusing their keep pace with new developments and wealth of experience into our local challenges in building a world class judicial jurisprudence. I congratulate them and wish system. We look ahead to 2011 with renewed them many fulfilling years on the Bench. commitment to uphold the highest standards of quality, efficiency and service in the Judicial duties aside, many of the Supreme administration of justice. Court Judges have taken on leadership roles in key legal organisations, such as the Singapore Academy of Law and the Board of Legal Education (“the BLE”), in which they provide direction on law and policy. In 2010, Justice V K Rajah was appointed as chairman of a committee that was instrumental in the Chan Sek Keong recent creation of the Singapore Institute of Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Singapore Legal Education, which will soon replace the BLE in administering Part B of the Singapore Bar Examinations and the preparatory course
05 FOREWORD BY THE REGISTRAR
Foreword last year that this scheme would “transform the Legal Directorate” by empowering officers to shift from being process-driven to being knowledge-driven in their work. Supported by a change management programme, the scheme was fully implemented this year, and officers have since been rotated through the Directorate’s different functions. Having gained new skills and a broader understanding of the entire litigation process, they are now equipped as knowledge workers to deliver higher levels of performance.
I am pleased to share that the Supreme Court It has been another significant and satisfying was awarded various accolades in 2010, year at the Supreme Court. Under the such as the Public Service Milestone Award leadership of the Chief Justice, and with the and the ISO 9000 certification renewal with fullest support of the Bench and the successful conversion to the ISO 9001:2008 indefatigable efforts of our staff, we have standards. While we take pride in these progressed to give further expression to our achievements, we are aware of the need to core values of integrity and independence, constantly challenge ourselves to excel even quality public service, ownership, and further. Our first staff workplan of the new learning and innovation. We expanded our decade has been rolled out to consolidate work scope in 2010 and at the same time our key priorities and lay out the detailed maintained efficiency levels, so as to continue plans for the next two years. Its intent is to to deliver service standards of the highest identify and plug the gaps in our workflow quality to court users. This was achieved, or professional development to position us inter alia, by a critical re-examination and to pursue more challenging goals in the innovative re-engineering of our business future. The workplan has adopted the theme processes to anticipate and meet the more of ‘Achieving Creative Excellence’ or ‘ACE demanding requirements of our operating it’ to aptly encapsulate the need to harness environment. our creativity to make a quantum leap. This workplan was developed in collaboration In this connection, we have already seen the and consultation with all levels of staff, and fruits of the Case Management Officer focuses on four key thrusts to actualise our Scheme initiated in 2009. I had said in my strategic vision – Customised Training, Cross
06 Collaboration, Knowledge Management With this culture embedded, sharing (“KM”) and Paradigm Shift. knowledge in our daily work and functional areas is but a natural extension. We have In this Foreword, I would like to outline the also introduced e-learning programmes so framework of our workplan, since it is the as to allow staff to learn independently and blueprint as well as inspiration for all the make progressive leaps at their own pace events and activities in this and the next with each mouse click. annual report. The first key thrust, Customised Training, builds on a strategy that has served The second thrust, Cross Collaboration, us well. Where we have the in-house underscores the value-added partnerships experience and expertise, we draw on these that help us bring about enduring resources to design and execute functional organisational change. To combat any and educational training programmes to meet “working in silos” mentality within the our sui generis needs. Where we need to tap Supreme Court, we promote greater on expertise outside the organisation, we interaction through inter-Directorate rigorously source for subject matter experts committees and ad-hoc projects. Externally, to better guide us. This strategy ensures a in regard to matters which concern them, targeted and relevant training curriculum for we engage and work closely with our partners all roles. and stakeholders, including The Law Society of Singapore, the Singapore Academy of Law We have an intensive in-house Continuing and the Ministry of Law, amongst others. Judicial Education programme for our Legal Beyond our shores, we also continue to Service Officers, with seminars led by expand our networks of dynamic international academics, specialist officers from other alliances. agencies and even our own Supreme Court Judges. Another one of our in-house As for the third thrust, we emphasise nurturing programmes is the popular Staff Lecture Series our staff to become global knowledge workers conducted primarily by Justices’ Law Clerks who practise the four dimensions of KM: for all staff, which aims to widen their individual, team, organisational and inter- knowledge of pertinent legal subjects. Yet organisational. As KM can mean many things another, inaugurated this year, is the Supreme to many people, we decided to put ourselves Court Learning Day. This is an event which through an objective third party audit. This gives anyone and everyone an opportunity exercise also provided an opportunity to to share their knowledge, legal and non- connect ourselves to the larger community legal, in an informal, interactive and fun way, of KM practitioners. That we were awarded thus building a strong foundation for a KM the Bronze Award (Technology & Culture) at culture that encourages sharing and the KM Excellence Awards 2010, is an continuous learning at the workplace. affirmation that we are on the right track.
07 We will continue championing a KM culture To conclude, in striving for excellence, the that seamlessly connects people to people work here at the Supreme Court is never and people to information to support our done; nevertheless, we press on purposefully operational requirements. to deliver the high standards that have come to be expected of us. Finally, our fourth thrust is the concept of Paradigm Shift, which the Chief Justice eloquently fleshed out in his Workplan Seminar 2010 Keynote Address. The Chief Justice exhorted us to “look at the world with a fresh pair of eyes”. Further, he emboldened us to “seek to do things differently, and Foo Chee Hock discover different things to do”, which he Registrar, Supreme Court of Singapore said would call for us to develop a sense of curiosity and inventiveness for new ideas and work improvements. This is the quintessential approach and motivation that has brought us the Electronic Filing System (EFS), electronic Rules of Court (e-ROC), electronic Practice Directions (e-PD), and many other innovations that reinvent traditional processes.
08 CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION
The Judiciary is one of the three branches of of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court government in Singapore. The other two Registry is headed by the Registrar who is branches are the Executive and the assisted by the Deputy Registrar, Senior Legislature. Under Article 93 of the Assistant Registrars and Assistant Registrars. Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, Justices’ Law Clerks, who work directly under judicial power in Singapore is vested in the the charge of the Chief Justice, assist the Judges Supreme Court and in such subordinate of Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners courts as may be provided for by any written by carrying out research on the law. law for the time being in force. The Chief Justice is the head of the Judiciary. Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal hears appeals against the Structure of the Supreme Court decisions of High Court Judges in both civil The Supreme Court is made up of the Court and criminal matters. It became Singapore’s of Appeal and the High Court, and hears both final court of appeal on 8 April 1994, when civil and criminal matters. The Supreme Court appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Bench consists of the Chief Justice, the Judges Council were abolished. of Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners
10 The Chief Justice sits in the Court of Appeal Judge. Proceedings in the High Court are together with the Judges of Appeal. A Judge heard before a single Judge, unless otherwise of the High Court may, on the request of the provided by any written law. The High Court Chief Justice, sit in the Court of Appeal. The may also appoint one or more persons with Court of Appeal is presided over by the Chief expertise in the subject matter of the Justice, and in his absence, a Judge of Appeal proceedings to assist the court. or a Judge of the High Court. The High Court hears both criminal and civil The Court of Appeal is usually made up of cases as a court of first instance. The High three Judges. However, certain appeals, Court also hears appeals from the decisions including those against interlocutory orders, of District Courts and Magistrates’ Courts in may be heard by only two Judges. If necessary, civil and criminal cases, and decides points the Court of Appeal may comprise five or of law reserved in special cases submitted any greater uneven number of Judges. by a District Court or a Magistrates’ Court. In addition, the High Court has general High Court supervisory and revisionary jurisdiction over The High Court consists of the Chief Justice all subordinate courts in any civil or criminal and the Judges of the High Court. A Judge of matter. Appeal may also sit in the High Court as a
11 With a few limited exceptions, the High Supreme Court Registry Court has the jurisdiction to hear and try any The registrars perform both administrative civil action where the defendant is served and judicial functions. They preside over with a writ or originating summons in hearings of various pre-trial and post-trial Singapore, or outside Singapore in the matters in chambers. These include: circumstances authorised by Rules of Court, • Applications for summary judgment; or where the defendant submits to the • Bankruptcy applications; jurisdiction of the High Court. Generally, • Taxation of costs; except in probate matters, a civil case must • Assessment of damages; and be commenced in the High Court if the value • Various other interlocutory applications of the claim exceeds S$250,000. Probate such as those for discovery of documents or matters are commenced in the High Court for striking out of pleadings. only if the value of the deceased’s estate exceeds S$3 million or if the case involves They also conduct pre-trial conferences and the resealing of a foreign grant. In addition, take charge of case management, including ancillary matters in family proceedings case scheduling. In their concurrent involving assets of S$1.5 million or more are appointments as Magistrates or District Judges, also heard in the High Court. they conduct Preliminary Inquiries in criminal cases. Some registrars also hold appointments The following matters are also exclusively on tribunals and various committees. heard by the High Court: • Admiralty matters; In addition, the registrars supervise the • Company winding-up proceedings; Registry counter staff in their daily operations • Bankruptcy proceedings; and and take charge of various Registry portfolios • Applications for the admission of advocates such as personnel, finance, corporate and solicitors. communications and security. They also steer and drive projects involving case The High Court has jurisdiction to try all management, organisational excellence, offences committed in Singapore and may information technology, and knowledge also try offences committed outside Singapore management in the Judiciary. in certain circumstances. In criminal cases, the High Court generally tries cases where the offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for a term which exceeds 10 years.
12 SIGNIFICANT EVENTS SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
The Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice Chan Sek Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong at the Opening of the Legal Keong making their way into the auditorium for the Year Ceremony 2010. Opening of Legal Year Ceremony 2010.
Opening of the Legal Year The President of the Law Society, Mr Michael In 2010, the Opening of the Legal Year Hwang SC, delivered the next address and ceremony took place on 9 January at the outlined the Law Society’s plans to engage Supreme Court Auditorium. During the members’ views more actively so that it could ceremony, Attorney-General Professor Walter represent the needs of a diversity of practices Woon and the President of the Law Society, and firms. Other plans for 2010 included a Mr Michael Hwang SC, renewed their pledges review of all Law Society Practice Directions of support, on behalf of the Attorney-General’s and Updates, and an enlargement of the Chambers and the practicing Bar respectively, scope of the pro bono programme to offer to uphold the rule of law and the legal assistance to more segments of the administration of justice. public.
In his address, the Attorney-General discussed He went further to discuss the the capabilities and resources needed to cope internationalisation of the Singapore Bar and with the demands of the Legal Service in the the Law Society’s efforts to increase global future. He noted that the Legal Service had awareness of Singapore’s legal expertise. This been able to recruit excellent young officers, included its participation in international law including those with specialist experience events, dialogues and conferences. who could augment its capabilities to handle complex cases. Moving forward, with the In his response, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong launch of the Centre for International Law, applauded the Law Society’s efforts to raise he touched on the need to build up the global profile of the Singapore Bar and international law expertise in the long term. noted that many improvements introduced
14 The Honourable the Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal and Judges at the Opening of the Legal Year 2010. to the judicial system were the fruit of trials and to increase the jurisdiction and international interactions. However, the powers of the Subordinate Courts to reduce administration of justice was local and must the caseload in the Supreme Court. In addition be appropriate to local circumstances. In the to the on-going efforts to fine-tune the opt-in past decade, Singapore had made progress framework for electronic discovery, there were in promoting itself as a venue for international plans to consider adopting new media to arbitration and its law as the law of choice enhance the administration of justice. for international commercial contracts. In closing, the Chief Justice announced the The Chief Justice expressed his confidence appointment of four Senior Counsel and in the courts’ ability to continue attracting declared the new legal year open. high-quality talent and sustaining, or even surpassing, the current level of performance and productivity in judicial work. While court procedures would continue to be simplified and streamlined, he encouraged further moves to divert disputes away from the courts through mediation, membership voting or other simpler, less expensive and faster ways to achieve resolution.
To cope with increasing volumes of work, the New Senior Counsel appointed in 2010. From left to right Chief Justice laid out future plans to simplify - Ms Suriyiacala Jennifer Marie, Mr George Lim Teong Jin, or reduce interlocutory processes that delayed Mr Maniam Andre Francis, Dr Stanley Lai Tze Chang.
15 Newly-admitted advocates and solicitors of the Singapore Bar at Mass Call 2010.
Mass Call The Chief Justice also encouraged them to 248 law graduates were called to the Bar at uphold the ideal of law as a noble profession the annual Mass Call on 29 May 2010. by engaging in pro bono work. He also Presiding over the ceremony at the Victoria touched on how the legal profession was Concert Hall, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong now poised to offer young lawyers an exciting congratulated the newly minted officers of professional future of at least 50 years. He the court, even as he reminded them to ended his address on a lighter note by embrace law as a profession where life-long reminding those present that there was more learning and responsibility came with the to a lawyer’s life than being closeted in the privilege. To this end, he exhorted the new room, calling on them to keep traditions alive lawyers to always uphold justice and to be by participating in the annual Bench and Bar true to themselves and to their clients in Games between Singapore and Malaysia as discharging their responsibilities. players or supporters.
16 Judge of Appeal Justice V K Rajah of the Supreme Court of Singapore, and Chief Justice James Spigelman of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, at the signing of the MOU in Sydney, Australia.
International Agreements court proceedings. Apart from the fact that On 23 June 2010, the Supreme Courts of this process would entail frequent and costly Singapore and New South Wales inked a travel from one country to another by the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) expert witnesses, the presiding judge would, to work closely and expeditiously on issues in effect, be adjudicating between conflicting arising under foreign law. This agreement expert witnesses with a real prospect that an allows cross-border commercial and family incorrect understanding of the foreign law disputes to be determined more quickly, may be adopted and applied. authoritatively and accurately. The MOU is the first-ever forged between the Supreme With the new MOU, parties before a court Court of Singapore and its foreign counterpart in one jurisdiction will have the option of on a legal issue, as distinct from one related seeking a ruling directly from a court in the to education or mutual assistance. other jurisdiction about its own laws through the referral of a question of foreign law by Usually, when an issue of foreign law arises the one court for determination by the other. in a case before the Supreme Court, the Consequential amendments have been made parties would engage their own experts on to the Rules of Court to give effect to the MOU. foreign law to provide advice and attend
17 Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong presenting the inaugural LASCO Award 2010 to Mr Amolat Singh.
Inaugural LASCO Award An integral feature in Singapore’s pro bono In 2010, a new award was launched to landscape, LASCO ensures that all persons recognise deserving counsel who showed facing capital charges are legally represented, exemplary commitment to the Supreme both at trial before the High Court and on Court’s Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital appeal before the Court of Appeal, at no cost. Offences (“LASCO”). The 200 lawyers registered under the scheme thus play an important role in promoting The inaugural LASCO Award was presented criminal justice and preventing any to Mr Amolat Singh, Managing Partner of miscarriage of justice. In the words of Chief Amolat & Partners, who had contributed to Justice Chan Sek Keong, “[p]articipating in the scheme for 16 years. In receiving the LASCO may be regarded as a moral award on 26 November 2010, Mr Singh said: obligation on the part of any member of the “I truly believe in the criminal justice system, legal profession, but especially those who and joining LASCO is my way of living a practise at the Criminal Bar”. lawyer’s dream – that of defending life, limb and liberty.”
18 THE SUPREME COURT BENCH THE SUPREME COURT BENCH
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong
JUDGES OF APPEAL
Judge of Appeal Judge of Appeal Judge of Appeal Justice Chao Hick Tin Justice Andrew Phang Justice V K Rajah Boon Leong
20 JUDGES
Justice Kan Ting Chiu Justice Lai Siu Chiu Justice Judith Prakash Justice Tan Lee Meng
Justice Choo Han Teck Justice Belinda Ang Justice Woo Bih Li Justice Tay Yong Kwang Saw Ean
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
21 (From left) Justice Steven Chong, Justice Philip Pillai, Mr J Y Pillai, Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisors, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Justice Quentin Loh, Supreme Court of Singapore Registrar Foo Chee Hock, at the Judges’ swearing-in ceremony at the Istana.
CHANGES TO THE BENCH Partner/Senior Partner from 1992 until he was appointed a Judicial Commissioner on Appointment of three Judges of 1 October 2009. In 2003, Justice Pillai was the High Court awarded the Singapore Public Service Star Judicial Commissioners Dr Philip Nalliah Medal on National Day. Pillai, Mr Quentin Loh Sze-On and Mr Steven Chong Horng Siong, who were appointed to Justice Loh graduated from the National the Bench in 2009, were sworn in as Judges University of Singapore in 1974 and began of the High Court in a ceremony held at the his legal career in the law firm Rodyk & Istana on 1 June 2010. These appointments Davidson in 1975. In 1979, he co-founded increased the total number of Judges in the the law firm Cooma Lau & Loh and became Supreme Court to 18. its Managing Partner in 1990, a post that he held until he joined the law firm Rajah & Justice Pillai graduated from the University Tann in 2001. Prior to his appointment as a of Singapore with First Class Honours in Judicial Commissioner on 1 September 2009, 1971 and joined the University’s Law Faculty. Justice Loh was Rajah & Tann’s Deputy He holds a Master of Laws (1973) and Doctor Managing Partner and Head of its of Juridical Science (1982), both from Harvard Construction and Projects Practice Group as Law School. In 1986, Justice Pillai joined the well as its Insurance and Reinsurance Practice law firm Shook Lin & Bok as a corporate Group. Justice Loh was appointed Senior practice Partner and became its Managing Counsel in 1999.
22 Justice Chong graduated from the National Conference on International Investment University of Singapore in 1982 and began Arbitration his legal career in the law firm Drew & Napier The Conference on International Investment in 1983. In 1991, he became the Head of Arbitration was organised by the Centre for Drew & Napier’s Shipping Department and International Law in conjunction with the was also a member of its Executive inaugural Singapore Arbitration Forum on Committee. He was the firm’s Joint Managing 20 January 2010. In his welcome remarks, Partner from the end of 1997 until he joined Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong set the tone the law firm Rajah & Tann as joint Managing for the conference by noting the growth in Partner in 1998. In 2003, he assumed the the number of investor-State disputes position of Managing Partner, a post he held involving international investment agreements until his appointment as a Judicial that had been brought before arbitration Commissioner on 1 October 2009. Justice tribunals in recent years, while highlighting Chong was appointed Senior Counsel in the advantages Singapore offered as an 1998. international arbitration hub.
JUDGES’ PROFILE International Conference of Jurists at Sea Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong presided over Chief Justice conferred Honorary Doctor the inaugural session at the four-day of Laws conference. The conference was held from In recognition of his leadership of Singapore’s 28 February to 3 March 2010 and focussed judiciary and his contributions to the country’s on the theme ‘Global Warming & Rule of criminal justice system, the National Law’. University of Singapore (“NUS”) conferred an Honorary Doctor of Laws on Chief Justice Following a speech by Dr Adish C Aggarwala, Chan Sek Keong on 6 July 2010 during the President of the International Council of NUS Commencement Ceremony 2010. Jurists, the Chief Justice addressed the audience on the need for a response to global In his address to the graduands and their warming which he described as “the critical families who attended the ceremony, NUS issue of our times”. He noted that the key to President, Professor Tan Chorh Chuan said, addressing climate change successfully lay “Chief Justice Chan firmly believes that a in ensuring compliance with binding good judge must understand the culture and obligations, not unlike any other international contexts of the communities that make up law. This could be achieved by empowering our multi-racial society. As he has shown international institutions to monitor and through his work, it is by valuing our society enforce compliance or building upon existing that we can really serve it well.” systems under the Kyoto Protocol, as the international legal architecture evolved.
23 Chief Justice’s Visit to the Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Regions Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong visited the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region from 2 to 5 June 2010. In the course of the visit, the Chief Justice delivered a speech titled ‘Criminal Justice in Singapore: Ideology and the Role of the Judiciary’ to the Hong Kong Judiciary and Bar on 3 June 2010 at the High Court of Hong Kong.
Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong delivering his keynote The next day, the Chief Justice met with address at the 20th Annual Conference of the Inter-Pacific faculty members at the Law Faculty of the Bar Association. University of Hong Kong before proceeding to the Macau SAR where he was guest-of- Annual Conference of the Inter-Pacific Bar honour at a dinner hosted by Justice Sam Association Hou Fai, President of the Court of Final Appeal At the 20th Annual Conference of the Inter- of the Macau SAR. Pacific Bar Association, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong was invited to deliver the keynote Asia-Pacific Courts Conference 2010 address at a special session on 4 May 2010. Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong was invited to Held for the first time in Singapore from deliver the opening keynote address to 220 2 to 5 May 2010, the conference featured speakers, delegates and participants from 56 speakers such as Singapore’s Minister Mentor countries at the Asia-Pacific Courts Lee Kuan Yew, and the 45th Vice President Conference 2010 organised by the of the United States, Al Gore. Subordinate Courts of Singapore. The conference was held in Singapore from 4 to The Chief Justice’s address on ‘Transnational 6 October 2010 to promote awareness among Issues for Judges in the New Global Financial judiciaries about the newly established and Business Climate’ covered the challenges International Framework for Court Excellence in applying local laws and regulations to (“the Framework”), and to encourage the use complex cross-border transactions and of the Framework as a resource to promote disputes to achieve a fair outcome and judicial reform and improve court cooperation. After examining the legal issues performance. and challenges, he surmised that there might not be a truly global solution to such disputes. Elaborating on the need for court excellence As such, each national court would have to in his address, the Chief Justice said that it deal with these issues as equitably and fairly was no longer sufficient for courts to deliver as they could.
24 just judicial independence, impartiality and For the long-term renewal of the skills and fairness. Instead, the quality of the justice ethos of the litigation Bar, the Chief Justice delivery system now depends on the further encouraged Senior Counsel to inspire efficiency of pre-trial processes, cost factors young lawyers through avenues such as the and the timeliness of hearings, case disposals Litigation Internship Programme organised and enforcement procedures. The Chief by the Professional Development & Practice Justice concluded that judicial reform for Chapter of the Singapore Academy of Law. court excellence would require time and This programme would, among other things, funding, as well as dedication and allow aspiring law undergraduates to be perseverance. attached to a Senior Counsel for over a week. In his final point, the Chief Justice invited Dinner hosted by the Judiciary for the the Bar to provide feedback on recent Forum of Senior Counsel improvements to aid litigation introduced by The Supreme Court Bench hosted the Forum the Supreme Court, such as the electronic of Senior Counsel to dinner on 14 May 2010 Practice Directions and Lead Counsel with a view to strengthening bonds between Statements. the Bar and the Judiciary. The Supreme Court Bench and over 30 Senior Counsel attended the dinner, which was held at The Regent Singapore. This was the second such dinner hosted by the Judiciary for the Forum of Senior Counsel, with the first having been hosted by the Judiciary in 2008.
At the dinner, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong outlined the progress made by the Singapore Institute of Legal Education in developing a framework for Continuing Professional Development (“CPD”) in Singapore. Chief Justice Chan exhorted Senior Counsel and leading members of the corporate Bar to participate in the CPD programme by volunteering their services as lecturers, instructors and mentors in their respective areas of practice in order to maintain the professional standards of the Bar.
25 JUDGES’ PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL & OVERSEAS EVENTS 2010
Date Attending Judge(s) Host Name of Event Country
12 – 14 Jan Quentin Loh J Hong Kong Second Judicial Seminar on Commercial SAR Litigation • Quentin Loh J delivered the introductory remarks entitled "The Long and Complex Trial: A Dear Friend and an Old Foe" 16 Jan CJ Chan Sek Keong Putrajaya, Inaugural Opening of the Legal Year Malaysia 2010 of the Supreme Court of Malaysia 20 Jan CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Conference on International Investment Arbitration • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the welcome address to the conference delegates 23 – 27 Jan CJ Chan Sek Keong Canberra, Supreme & Federal Court Judges’ V K Rajah JA Australia Conference 2010 18 -21 Feb Chao Hick Tin JA Manila, ASEAN Law Association Governing Lee Seiu Kin J Philippines Council Meeting • Lee Seiu Kin J delivered the opening address to the meeting delegates 20 Feb V K Rajah JA Mumbai, Singapore International Arbitration India Centre & Confederation of Indian Industry Conference • V K Rajah JA participated as a panel speaker at the Conference 26 Feb CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Subordinate Courts Workplan 2010 • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the keynote address at the Workplan 28 Feb CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore International Conference of Jurists on Sea: Global Warming & Rule of Law • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered a speech at the inaugural ceremony to the conference delegates 7 – 11 Mar Lee Seiu Kin J Sydney, L'Association Internationale des Hautes Australia Juridictions Administratives 10th Congress • Lee Seiu Kin J presented a paper entitled “National Report on Singapore’s Administrative Processes” 9 Apr CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Lecture to Singapore Management University Second Year Law Students • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered a lecture entitled “Judicial Review – From Angst to Empathy”
26 Date Attending Judge(s) Host Name of Event Country
29 Apr – CJ Chan Sek Keong Penang, Annual Bench and Bar Games 1 May Chao Hick Tin JA Malaysia • CJ Chan Sek Keong led the Singapore delegation Choo Han Teck J at the Games Lee Seiu Kin J 4 May CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore 20th Annual Conference of the V K Rajah JA Inter-Pacific Bar Association • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the keynote address entitled “Challenges in Applying Local Laws and Regulations to Complex Cross-Border Transactions and Disputes to Achieve a Fair Outcome and Cooperation Between Judges in Different Nations” at the special session on “Transnational Issues for Judges in the New Global Financial and Business Climate” • V K Rajah JA addressed conference delegates on their visit to the Supreme Court of Singapore, and moderated the opening panel session 6 May CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Singapore Academy of Law Distinguished Speaker Series: An Inaugural Lecture by Chief Justice James Spigelman AC • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the introductory address to the lecture attendees 29 May 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 3 – 4 Jun CJ Chan Sek Keong Hong Kong Visit to the High Court of the Hong SAR & Kong SAR Macau SAR • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered a talk entitled “Criminal Justice in Singapore: Ideology, and the Role of the Judiciary” to the Hong Kong Judiciary and Bar Visit to the University of Hong Kong Law Faculty • CJ Chan Sek Keong met with members of the University of Hong Kong Law Faculty Dinner Meeting hosted by the President of the Court of Final Appeal, Macau SAR • CJ Chan Sek Keong was the Guest of Honour at the dinner meeting hosted by Justice Sam Hou Fai, President of the Court of Final Appeal, Macau SAR
27 Date Attending Judge(s) Host Name of Event Country
11 – 16 Jul Chao Hick Tin JA Jakarta, 7th Conference of Asian Constitutional Indonesia Court Judges • Chao Hick Tin JA delivered a paper entitled “Electoral Systems in Comparison: Unique Features of the Singapore Parliamentary System”
28 Jul Choo Han Teck J Singapore 10th World Congress of Bioethics • Choo Han Teck J delivered a paper entitled “The Courts and Bioethical Issues” at the symposium session entitled “Law and Ethics in the Construct of Biomedical Science in the Courtroom”
28 Jul Steven Chong J Singapore Singapore Academy of Law Expert Series seminar entitled “To put or not to put – The Rule in Browne v Dunn” • Steven Chong J chaired the seminar
29 – 30 Jul V K Rajah JA Kuala 15th Malaysian Law Conference Lumpur, • V K Rajah JA delivered a speech entitled Malaysia “Redrawing The Boundaries of Contractual Interpretation: From Text to Context to Pre-Text And Beyond” at the plenary session of the Conference
5 – 7 Aug Lee Seiu Kin J Manila, Testimonial Reception and Programme Philippines in Honour of the New Chairman of the Philippines ASEAN LAW Association National Committee
12 Aug CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Inaugural Forum: Bench-Prosecution- Bar Lunch • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered an address to the forum attendees
19 – 22 Aug V K Rajah JA Sydney, Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia Conference 2010
25 Aug Steven Chong J Singapore Singapore Academy of Law – Law Society of Singapore Panel Discussion entitled “Anatomy of the Legal Profession” • Steven Chong J chaired the panel discussion
28 Date Attending Judge(s) Host Name of Event Country
14 – 15 Sep CJ Chan Sek Keong Melbourne, Careers@Singapore: Legal Services V K Rajah JA Australia • CJ Chan Sek Keong and V K Rajah JA met with Singapore law students in Australia Luncheon Meeting hosted by the Asia Practice Section of the Commercial Bar Association of Victoria • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered an address at the luncheon meeting • CJ Chan Sek Keong and V K Rajah JA made a courtesy call on Chief Justice Marilyn Warren of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
15 – 16 Sep V K Rajah JA Melbourne, Singapore Institute of Legal Education Australia Meetings
22 – 25 Sep Quentin Loh J Vladivostok, Annual Forum of Countries of the Russian Asia-Pacific Region Federation • Quentin Loh J delivered a paper entitled “Property Rights in Singapore”
5 Oct CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Asia-Pacific Courts Conference 2010 V K Rajah JA • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered the keynote address to the conference attendees • V K Rajah JA presented a paper entitled “Judicial Education In Singapore Beyond The Horizon”
6 Oct CJ Chan Sek Keong Kuala 24th Sultan Azlan Shah Law Lecture Lumpur, Malaysia
25 – 28 Oct Lee Seiu Kin J Beijing, 4th Asia-Pacific Judicial Reform Forum China Meeting • Lee Seiu Kin J presented a paper entitled “LawNet: The Singapore Legal Research Experience” at the panel session entitled “Using Technology to Improve Support to the Judiciary”
30 Oct – CJ Chan Sek Keong London, Careers@Singapore: Legal Services 1 Nov V K Rajah JA United • CJ Chan Sek Keong and V K Rajah JA met with Kingdom Singapore law students in the United Kingdom • CJ Chan Sek Keong and V K Rajah JA made a courtesy call on the Honourable Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
29 Date Attending Judge(s) Host Name of Event Country
31 Oct – Lee Seiu Kin J Australia E-Conveyancing Feasibility Study Trip 5 Nov
2 – 3 Nov V K Rajah JA London, Singapore Institute of Legal Education United Meetings Kingdom
4 – 6 Nov Andrew Phang JA Melbourne, Australasian Institute of Judicial Australia Administration Appellate Judges’ Conference
10 Nov CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore LawNet 20th Anniversary Dinner Chao Hick Tin JA • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered a speech to guests Andrew Phang JA at the dinner V K Rajah JA • Lee Seiu Kin J delivered the opening address Lee Seiu Kin J to guests at the dinner
14 – 16 Nov V K Rajah JA Hong Kong 3rd Biennale HKU-NUS-SMU Law SAR Symposium • V K Rajah JA delivered a paper entitled “Judicial Dynamism in International Trade in Hong Kong and Singapore – An Indivisible Link”
26 Nov CJ Chan Sek Keong Singapore Inaugural Legal Aid Scheme for Capital Offences (LASCO) Award Dinner • CJ Chan Sek Keong delivered a speech to guests at the dinner
30 INTERNATIONAL PROFILE INTERNATIONAL PROFILE
The Middle Templar profiles the Supreme allowed lawyers the convenience of filing Court and its Building documents online and using touch screens The Middle Templar, a publication of the to check in to court. During her visit, Master Middle Temple, one of the four Inns of Court Ackner also had the opportunity to discourse in the United Kingdom, published an article1 on a wide range of topics with the in its Winter 2010 issue. Written by Master Chief Justice. Claudia Ackner, the article traced her visit to Singapore in 2010 where she met with Supreme Court building takes prime spot Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and other on cover of American publication members of the legal community. The National Center for State Courts in the United States gave the Supreme Court The article highlighted the architectural Building pride of place on the cover of its heritage of the old Supreme Court building publication ‘Retrospective of Courthouse and discussed the impressive architecture of Design 2001 – 2010’, which also featured the new building. “We Brits had built in photographs of nine other court buildings. classical, dignified style – dome, Corinthian columns, solid and stolid stone – the old The publication, into its third edition, is the Supreme Court. It was opened in August only one of its kind dedicated to courthouse 1939, just in time for World War II… By architecture and design. Each edition is 2000 the government decided that the essentially devoted to chronicling major building would be better put to use as an art courthouse design trends of the decade and gallery and so the new Supreme Court was illustrating the architectural innovations and built”, it noted. solutions sought in addressing evolving judicial needs. Elaborating further, the article described the building’s unique cladding in glass and pink The entry on Singapore’s nine-storey Supreme Italian marble “that permits light to enter Court Building, one of only six non-United during the day, and by night the building States courthouses selected for the emits a warm glow”. There was also “a huge publication, noted that it had been designed cathedral-like central nave” bisecting the to reflect the hierarchies in the judicial system building in addition to the spectacular views and that while the civil and criminal courts to be enjoyed from the “flying saucer” where are located on the lower floors, the Court of the Chief Justice sat literally and figuratively. Appeal is symbolically raised above the other The article also drew attention to the courtrooms. building’s provision of electronic aids, which
1 The article is summarised here with kind permission of the Masters of the Bench of The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple.
32 Framework”, followed by Hong Kong and Malaysia in second and third positions respectively.
In the PERC report, Singapore was ranked the second strongest judicial system in Asia among 12 jurisdictions surveyed, with Hong Kong viewed as the strongest.
OVERSEAS CONFERENCES, ATTACHMENTS AND SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
Attachment to Royal Courts of Justice in Front cover of the National Center for State Courts’ publication, “Retrospective of Courthouse Design 2001 the United Kingdom – 2010”. The Supreme Court of Singapore building is Three judicial officers from the Supreme 2 featured in the top left corner . Court of Singapore were attached to the Queen’s Bench Division of the Royal Courts It added that “the building’s architectural of Justice in London in 2010. Assistant vocabulary and the design of its public spaces Registrars Peh Aik Hin and Crystal Tan Huiling are intended to convey qualities representative spent two weeks in the Royal Courts of Justice of Singapore’s legal system as well as the in February, while Assistant Registrar image of dignity, history, judicial symbolism, Nathaniel Khng did a one week attachment transparency, accessibility, and the in November. All three Assistant Registrars enforcement of justice”. sat in with the Queen’s Bench Masters during Chamber hearings to observe the judicial Rankings in International Surveys acumen of the Masters and gain a deeper Singapore continued to score well in understanding of how interlocutory court international surveys conducted by the applications are conducted in the United International Institute for Management Kingdom. They also visited Willesden County Development (“IMD”) and the Political and Court and the new Supreme Court of the Economic Risk Consultancy (“PERC”). United Kingdom. Assistant Registrars Peh Aik Hin and Crystal Tan Huiling, in addition, had In the 2010 IMD World Competitiveness the opportunity to meet with the Registrar of Yearbook, Singapore topped the rankings the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. under the criteria of “Legal and Regulatory
2 The cover is reproduced here with kind permission of the National Center for State Courts.
33 National Public Sector Legal Officers’ Presentation at Judicial Colloquium Forum 2010 in Korea Assistant Registrar Leong Weng Tat At a judicial colloquium on international represented the Supreme Court at the trends in electronic filing at the invitation of National Public Sector – Legal Officers’ Forum the Supreme Court of Korea, Registrar Foo 2010 in Canberra, Australia. The event, held Chee Hock and Senior Assistant Registrar on 9 and 10 March 2010, sought to bring Yeong Zee Kin spoke about the Supreme together legal professionals working in the Court’s experience in implementing the public sector to discuss effective strategies Electronic Filing System, as well as the and working models to enhance performance ongoing development of its new electronic and efficiency. filing system, the Integrated Electronic Litigation System. Study trip to the United States of America To find out how audio and video recordings Presentation at e-Discovery and Digital of hearings are captured in other jurisdictions, Forensics Seminar in Hong Kong and how transcripts are generated, a A team of Assistant Registrars led by Senior delegation led by Assistant Registrar Cornie Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin delivered Ng visited the United States of America on a presentation on Singapore’s electronic a study trip from 20 to 28 March 2010. There, Practice Directions at the e-Discovery and they learnt about court recording and Digital Forensics Seminar in the Hong Kong transcription technology and processes from SAR on 8 July 2010. The seminar provided the Supreme Court of Texas in Austin and invaluable insights into e-discovery practices the First Department of the New York State and developments in other jurisdictions. Supreme Court. Advanced Judicial Colloquium for the Presentation at Judges’ Conference in Judiciary in Cambodia Malaysia Assistant Registrar Tan Sze Yao visited Phnom Supreme Court Registrar Foo Chee Hock Penh, Cambodia, to deliver a presentation delivered a presentation on ‘Combined Civil at the Advanced Colloquium for the Judiciary Rules – The Singapore Experience’ at the on Civil Adjudication of Intellectual Property Judges’ Conference in Malaysia on 16 April Rights and International Trade Cases.In his 2010. In his presentation, he shared presentation, he delved into the topic of Singapore’s experience and challenges in specialised courts, examining their advantages merging and unifying the Rules of the and disadvantages, as well as alternatives to Supreme Court and Subordinate Courts into such courts. a single document called the Rules of Court.
34 4th Asia-Pacific Judicial Reform Meeting Apart from deepening their understanding in China of the structure of the Judiciary and court A delegation led by Justice Lee Seiu Kin processes in Mauritius, the Singapore attended the 4th Asia-Pacific Judicial Reform delegation shared its experiences on the Meeting at the invitation of the organisers. Electronic Filing System and other uses of The meeting was held in Beijing, China, from information technology in case management. 25 to 28 October 2010. At the event, Justice This was particularly relevant and timely in Lee spoke about ‘LawNet: The Singapore view of the implementation by the Supreme Legal Research Experience’, while Registrar Court of Mauritius of its own electronic filing Foo Chee Hock presented on the topic of system. ‘Optimising Technology in the Litigation Process – Singapore’s EFS Experience’. Participation in e-Courts West Conference 2010 Educational Trip to the Supreme Court Delegates to the e-Courts West Conference of Mauritius 2010 gained insights into Singapore’s journey To strengthen relationships with the Judiciary from electronic filing towards electronic of Mauritius, a delegation led by Senior litigation through a presentation entitled Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin undertook ‘Beyond Electronic Filing’ by Assistant an educational trip to the Supreme Court of Registrar Cornie Ng. Assistant Registrar Tan Mauritius from 29 November to 2 December Sze Yao also attended the event held from 2010. In the course of the visit, the delegation 25 to 28 October 2010 in Las Vegas, United met with Chief Justice Yeung Kam John Sik States of America. Yuen and Puisne Judges Asraf Ally Caunhye and Paul Lam Shang Leen.
35 VISITS BY DISTINGUISHED GUESTS
Highlighted below are some of the distinguished guests who visited the Supreme Court in 2010:
HE Hisashi Owada, President of the International Court of Justice (right) and Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.
21 Jan Chief Justice Augustino Ramadhani, High Court of Tanzania 28 Jan HE Antonio Villegas, Mexican Ambassador to Singapore 23 Feb Judge Arild O. Eidesen, President of the Halogaland Court of Appeal, Norway 1 Mar Mr Vyacheslav Lebedev, Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 9 Mar Chief Justice Frederick Egonda-Ntende, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Seychelles 12 Mar HE Roland Van Remoortele, Belgian Ambassador to Singapore 26 Apr Professor Githu Muigai, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, United Nations 3 May Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Malaysia 3 May Chief Justice Myron Steele, Supreme Court of Delaware, United States of America 4 May Chief Justice James Spigelman, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia 5 May Judge John Clifford Wallace, Senior Judge and Chief Judge Emeritus, United States Court of Appeals 5 May Justice Susan Glazebrook, Court of Appeal, New Zealand
36 Chief Justice Wayne Martin, Supreme Court of Western Australia, Chief Justice Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki bin Tun Azmi, Federal Court (left) and Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. of Malaysia (left) and Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong.
13 May Justice Petrus Namaseb, President of the High Court of Namibia 25 May HE Dr Hamad Al Ghaferi, Director General, National Rehabilitation Centre, United Arab Emirates 18 Jun HE Wei Wei, Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to Singapore 5 Jul Dato’ Seri Paduka Hj Kifrawi Bin Dato’ Paduka Hj Kifli, Chief Justice of Brunei Darussalam 20 Jul Mr Huo Min, Deputy Chief Justice of the High Court of Guangdong Province, People’s Republic of China 28 Jul HE Hasim Kilic, President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey 10 Aug HE Oh Joon, Korean Ambassador to Singapore 8 Sep HE Hisashi Owada, President of International Court of Justice 9 Sep Mr Veerapa Moily, Minister of Law and Justice, India
37 Dr Hadef Ju’an Al Dhaheri, Minister of Justice, United Arab Emirates (sixth from left), and delegation, with Justice Quentin Loh (sixth from right) and judicial officers from the Supreme Court of Singapore.
4 Oct Chief Justice Marilyn Warren, Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia 4 Oct Chief Justice Wayne Martin, Supreme Court of Western Australia 4 Oct Chief Justice Tun Dato’ Seri Zaki bin Tun Azmi, Federal Court of Malaysia 21 Oct Chief Justice Ivor Archie, Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago 22 Nov Bapak Widayatno Sastrohardjono, SH, MSc, Junior Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indonesia 26 Nov Mr Wong Yan Lung, Secretary for Justice, Hong Kong SAR 15 Dec Dr Hadef Jua’an Al Dhahiri, Minister of Justice, United Arab Emirates
38 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Supreme Court of Singapore Registrar Foo Chee Hock and Deputy Registrar Audrey Lim with winners of the Supreme Court Workplan 2010 T-shirt Design Competition.
Supreme Court Staff Workplan Seminar Citing the Integrated Electronic Litigation The Supreme Court’s 2010 annual Staff System (“iELS”) as an example, Chief Justice Workplan Seminar focused on ‘Achieving Chan showed how the project represented Creative Excellence’, as embodied in its a paradigm shift which positioned the acronym “ACE It”. Held on 15 April 2010, Supreme Court as a thought leader in judicial the event took stock of past achievements administration and court technologies. and looked ahead at future workplans across Initiated through cross collaboration with for the next two years. various stakeholders within the organisation as well as externally, the iELS exemplified Explaining the theme for the year, Chief how customised training could augment staff Justice Chan Sek Keong said that creativity competencies and how knowledge and continual improvement would help the management could be exploited to transfer Supreme Court make a quantum leap and institutional knowledge through and across prepare for the challenges ahead. He went technology platforms. on to elaborate on the four strategic thrusts of the workplan, namely customised training, cross collaboration, knowledge management, and paradigm shift.
40 Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong with award recipients at the Supreme Court Workplan Seminar 2010.
Registrar Foo Chee Hock also addressed the The Colloquium began with various Justices’ staff and emphasised the need for collective Law Clerks providing updates on significant effort and communication. He urged all staff recent significant decisions of the Court of to adopt a personal stake in the workplan Appeal. This was followed by a presentation and its outcomes. Following his address, the by the registrars on the role of the Duty Directorates presented their respective Registrar. Justice Steven Chong was the guest workplans for the year. speaker at the event and he shared with the registrars and Justices’ Law Clerks memorable Legal Colloquium anecdotes from his years as a top litigator in The annual Supreme Court Legal Colloquium private practice. saw the registrars and Justices’ Law Clerks gather for a retreat on 30 July 2010. Held in two stages at the Supreme Court and then at Sentosa, the day-long retreat provided an ideal setting for them to exchange legal updates on the law and participate in team- building activities.
41 Case Management Officer Scheme Both court users and the Legal Registry staff have begun to benefit from a new Case Management Officer Scheme rolled out in 2010. Reflecting a paradigm shift in how cases are managed operationally, this new scheme enables court users to have a specific case management officer as a point of contact for court services, while equipping the Legal Registry staff to better monitor the development and progress of a case from its inception upon filing to its eventual disposal.
The new scheme, an integral component of achieving court excellence, has upgraded Creative T-shirt designed by staff for the Workplan Seminar. the knowledge and skills of the Legal Registry staff and prepared them to make the transition Following lunch, the registrars and Justices’ to Case Management Officers who perform Law Clerks adjourned to Sentosa for an a wider range of tasks and are more unforgettable afternoon of challenges and responsive to the needs of court users. camaraderie-building at the MegaZip Customised training was conducted for the Adventure Park. Calls of encouragement and staff through workshops and e-learning support were frequently heard as nerves were modules, particularly in areas such as case put to the test on the aerial rope course, free- processing and communication skills. In fall simulator and the 450m long flying fox addition, six manuals covering 48 main ride from the Imbiah Lookout to Siloso Beach. processes were created to guide them through their new roles.
A total of 35 Case Management Officers each received an average of 78.4 hours of training in 2010. Close monitoring, on-the-job training and training assessments will continue in 2011 to help them be more effective in delivering professional court services.
42 Learning and Management Department & The LMD also oversees the Supreme Court’s Hearing Support Group KM initiatives, including the technology that The Supreme Court expanded its learning facilitates the sharing, consolidation, storage and service capabilities with the creation of and categorisation of knowledge as well as two new departments in 2010. These cultural aspects of KM that encourage staff departments address the changing needs of to share their skills and tacit knowledge the Supreme Court’s staff and users of its continuously. services more closely, creating relevant programmes aligned to organisational The other new department, the Hearing priorities. Support Group, was formed to augment service standards and enhance the satisfaction The Learning and Management Department of court users. The group identifies trends in (LMD) supports the Supreme Court in the user preferences and devises appropriate areas of e-learning, knowledge management measures to meet user needs, including (“KM”), and management and leadership streamlining operational processes and development. The LMD manages the learning implementing strategies to improve the overall and development needs of staff using service experience. technology-based learning platforms and mechanisms to meet the demand for job- specific, time-sensitive skills required by the organisation.These novel ways of training allow competency gaps to be closed quickly as staff can learn anytime and anywhere. While training hours are maintained, staff can spend less time away from their job roles.
43 ORGANISATIONAL ACCOLADES
Senior Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin with the Knowledge Supreme Court of Singapore Registrar Foo Chee Hock receiving Management Excellence Award. the Public Service Milestone Award from Head of Civil Service, Mr Peter Ho.
In 2010, the Supreme Court was conferred the following awards: Public Service Milestone Award 2010 Conferred by the Public Service Division • In recognition of meeting the qualifying criteria of Singapore Quality Class and any two Class-level standards in the journey towards organisational excellence.
Knowledge Management Award 2010: Bronze (Technology & Culture) Conferred by the Information and Knowledge Management Society • In recognition of knowledge management efforts, in line with key performance indicators, to support the work of judicial officers and the Legal Registry and the timely and effective determination of cases filed.
Defence Partner Award 2010: Meritorious Defence Partner Award Conferred by the Ministry of Defence • In recognition of commendable organisational support for Total Defence.
44 TIMELINESS OF JUSTICE WORKLOAD STATISTICS
CASELOAD AND DISPOSAL IN 2010 The breakdown of the caseload and disposal In 2010, the Supreme Court received a total of the civil and criminal proceedings for of 13,363 new civil and criminal matters. 2010 are shown in the following charts. The In the same period, a total of 13,137 matters resultant clearance rates are reflected were disposed of. The clearance rate* for all accordingly. civil and criminal matters for 2010 was 98%.
Civil Jurisdiction
Filed 8,000 103% 95% Disposed Clearance Rate 6,248 5,938 6,000 5,523 5,703
4,000 No. of Cases
99% 2,000 77% 95% 781 776 242 186 125 119 0 Civil Originating Civil Interlocutory Appeals before Appeals before Applications Processes Applications HC CA before CA
* 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.
46 Criminal Jurisdiction
Filed
90% Disposed 350 Clearance Rate 309 300 278
250
200
No. of Cases 150 86% 100 122% 107% 100% 56 48 50 36 44 30 32 13 13 0 Criminal Cases Criminal Motions # Magistrate’s Criminal Criminal Appeals Revisions Appeals
# Figure includes Criminal Motions before the Court of Appeal.
CASELOAD AND DISPOSAL TRENDS The clearance rate for all civil and criminal The volume of cases in 2010 was about 10% matters in 2010 was 98%, a slight increase lower than that for 2009. Though the civil over 2009’s clearance rate of 96%. caseload registered a decline, caseload for criminal matters, on the other hand, registered A comparison of caseload and disposal an increase. The number of Magistrate’s between 2010 and 2009 is illustrated in the Appeals received in 2010 increased by 25% charts that follow. as compared to 2009. Specifically, the number of filings had increased by more than two times over the last five years.
47 Civil Jurisdiction
8,000
6,824 6,639 6,248 6,000 5,523
4,000 2009 2010 No. of Cases Filed 2,000
709 781 172 242 70 125 0 Civil Originating Civil Interlocutory Appeals before Appeals before Applications Processes Applications HC CA before CA
8,000
6,372 6,537 5,938 6,000 5,703
4,000 2009 2010
2,000 No. of Cases Disposed Of
722 776 218 186 85 119 0 Civil Originating Civil Interlocutory Appeals before Appeals before Applications Processes Applications HC CA before CA
48 Criminal Jurisdiction
350 309 300
250 248
200 2009 2010 150
100 No. of Cases Filed 57 56 50 36 48 31 30 19 13 0 Criminal Cases Criminal Motions # Magistrate’s Criminal Criminal Appeals Revisions Appeals
300 278
250 235
200 2009 2010 150
100
No. of Cases Disposed Of 45 44 45 48 50 17 32 19 13 0 Criminal Cases Criminal Motions* Magistrate’s Criminal Criminal Appeals Revisions Appeals
# Figure includes Criminal Motions before the Court of Appeal.
49 WAITING PERIODS For the past few years, the targets set have all Targets for waiting periods in various court been consistently achieved. processes have been set as part of the Supreme Court’s commitment to the provision of quality The average timelines for waiting periods public service. These targets are reviewed achieved are set out in the tables that follow annually to ensure that they are realistic and for the corresponding years of 2009 and match international benchmarks. The Supreme 2010. In particular, trial dates for civil cases Court endeavours to achieve 90% compliance were given within four weeks of the date of with all targets set. set down.
Original Civil Jurisdiction
Achievement+ Type of Proceedings Target set by Department 2009 2010 Trials in Writ Action 8 weeks from the date of set down to trial 3.1 weeks 2.9 weeks Originating Summonses (OS) (i) Interpartes 5 weeks from the date of filing of the OS 4.4 weeks 4.4 weeks (ii) Exparte 3 weeks from the date of filing of the OS 1.7 weeks 1.3 weeks Bankruptcy OS^ 6 weeks from the date of filing of the OS 3.4 weeks 3.2 weeks Company Winding-up OS 4 weeks from the date of filing of the OS 3.5 weeks 3.5 weeks Probate OS 5 weeks from the date of filing of the OS 3.2 weeks 3.5 weeks
Summonses (SUM) (i) Summonses for summary judgment 5 weeks from the date of filing of the SUM pursuant to Order (statutory minimum period of 4.4 weeks) 4.8 weeks 4.9 weeks 14 of the Rules of Court (ii) All other 3 weeks from the date of filing of the SUM Before Judge Before Judge summonses 1.2 weeks 1.3 weeks Before Before Registrar Registrar 1.2 weeks 1.2 weeks
+ “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.
50 Achievement+ Type of Proceedings Target set by Department 2009 2010 Probate SUM 4 weeks from the date of filing of the SUM 2.4 weeks 2.5 weeks
Bankruptcy SUM∂ 4 weeks from the date of filing of the SUM 4.0 weeks 3.9 weeks (statutory minimum period of 3 weeks)
Original Criminal Jurisdiction
Achievement+ Type of Proceedings Target set by Department 2009 2010
Trials of Criminal 6 weeks from the date of the preliminary 6.0 weeks 5.4 weeks Cases inquiry
Appellate Civil Jurisdiction
Achievement+ Type of Proceedings Target set by Department 2009 2010 Appeal to the Court of Appeal (i) Civil appeals heard Ready to be heard within 12 weeks from before 2 Judges the date of notification to collect the record 12.0 weeks 12.0 weeks of proceedings (ROP) (ii) Civil appeals heard Ready to be heard within 16 weeks from before 3 Judges the date of notification to collect the ROP 15.9 weeks 16.0 weeks
Registrar’s Appeals to 3 weeks from the date of filing of the appeal 2.1 weeks 2.0 weeks the High Court Judge in Chambers 4 weeks from the date of filing of the appeal (against assessment of damages) 2.5 weeks 2.6 weeks
Appeals to the High Court from the 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the ROP 3.3 weeks 3.2 weeks Subordinate Courts
+ “Achievement” refers to the average timelines attained for the year and excludes court vacations. ∂ This item refers to applications for discharge only.
51 Appellate Criminal Jurisdiction
Achievement+ Type of Proceedings Target set by Department 2009 2010 Appeal to the Court of 8 weeks after the week of receipt Appeal of the last confirmation of the ROP 8.0 weeks 8.0 weeks Appeals to the High Court from the 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the ROP 5.2 weeks 6.0 weeks Subordinate Courts
+ “Achievement” refers to the average timelines attained for the year and excludes court vacations.
CASELOAD AND DISPOSAL OF CASES In the year under review, the Court of Three RELATING TO DISCIPLINARY Judges heard 10 cases involving 11 Advocates PROCEEDINGS IN 2010 and Solicitors. Of these, six Advocates and Solicitors were struck off the Roll of Advocates Under the Legal Profession (Disciplinary and Solicitors, one was suspended for two Tribunal) Rules, the Disciplinary Tribunal years, two had their show cause proceedings Secretariat is established by the Supreme dismissed (of which one matter was remitted Court to provide administrative support to a to the same Disciplinary Tribunal to decide Disciplinary Tribunal. on the appropriate punishment). The other two cases were for restoration to the Roll. In 2010, the Honourable the Chief Justice Of these, one was withdrawn and the other appointed 10 Disciplinary Tribunals, as was allowed. compared to 16 Disciplinary Tribunals in 2009. Together with six cases brought forward from 2009, the caseload of the Disciplinary Tribunal Secretariat stood at 16 cases. Of these 16 cases, the hearings for 12 cases have been completed, leaving four outstanding cases to be heard in 2011.
52 QUALITY OF JUSTICE QUALITY OF JUSTICE
Significant Decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Court of 3 Judges
Gobinathan Devathasan v Singapore Shafeeg bin Salim Talib and another v Medical Council Fatimah bte Abud bin Talib and others [2010] 2 SLR 926; [2010] SGHC 22 [2010] 2 SLR 1123; [2010] SGCA 11 The appellant in this case appealed to the In this case, the Court of Appeal dealt with the Court of 3 Judges against his conviction by applicability of the right of survivorship to a a Disciplinary Committee of the Singapore property held by a Muslim deceased who died Medical Council (“the DC”) for the intestate and his widow as joint-tenants. Their administration of allegedly inappropriate two children had converted to Christianity medical treatment to a patient. The Court before his death. After his death, the widow found that the DC’s decision to convict the became the registered proprietor. She then appellant was wrong in law as that decision transferred the property to herself and the two exceeded the scope of the charge as framed children as joint-tenants. The administrators of against the latter. The Court also found that the estate claimed that the transfer contravened the DC had dealt with certain aspects of the Muslim law because the two children, being evidence erroneously. However, the Court non-Muslims, were disentitled from inheriting stopped short of making any finding as to under the estate. They also relied on a fatwa whether the treatment administered was or religious ruling by the Majlis Ugama Islam efficacious, safe or scientifically established Singapore stating that the property was a as a method of treatment. matrimonial property (harta sepencarian) and half of it should be distributed according to The Court further remarked that in view of Muslim inheritance law. the fact that the proceedings against the appellant could have been better handled, The Court considered that the property was it was just as well that the Medical Registration registered land under the Land Titles Act (Cap Act (Cap 174, 2004 Rev Ed) had been recently 157, 2004 Rev Ed) which recognises the amended to allow for the appointment of a common law on joint-tenancy that a joint- legally trained person to sit as one of the tenant’s death results in his interest being members of the DC. Having a legally trained extinguished, leaving the survivor as the absolute member would ensure due process and a owner. Accordingly, the deceased’s interest in fuller appreciation of the nature of the the property extinguished upon death and did proceedings against alleged errant doctors. not form part of his estate. The concept of harta sepencarian was inapplicable as the deceased was of Turkish-Yemenic Arab descent and was not of the Malay race.
54 Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Cheok Doris v Commissioner of Stamp Co-operative Ltd and others Duties [2010] 3 SLR 110; [2010] SGCA 15 [2010] 4 SLR 397; [2010] SGCA 28 In this case, the Court of Appeal considered The appellant agreed to purchase a residential when the improper rejection of evidence by property; however, the sale and purchase a trial court would result in an order for a agreement was mutually rescinded as the net new trial by an appellate court. The Court lettable area of the property represented by the held that if improperly rejected evidence vendor was found to have included substantial would not, if admitted, meaningfully vary void space. The decision of the Commissioner the outcome of the case, no new trial would of Stamp Duties was that ad valorem stamp be ordered. Equally, if the improperly rejected duty was still chargeable despite the rescission. evidence would vary the outcome of the case The appellant objected, contending that the if admitted, but could be clearly and vendor was unable to deliver good title and, objectively established before the appellate therefore, she should not be liable for stamp court, no new trial would ordinarily be duty in accordance with the Stamp Duties Act ordered, because in such a situation the (Cap 312, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the SDA”). outcome of the case should simply be varied Proceedings in the High Court against the accordingly. Commissioner of Stamp Duties’ decision in the form of a case stated were subsequently The Court held that a new trial would instituted unsuccessfully by the appellant. ordinarily be ordered only where (a) the improperly rejected evidence would, if In the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that a admitted, have a substantial and realistic substantial discrepancy in the property area prospect of making a meaningful difference represented did not affect the vendor’s ability to the outcome of the case, and (b) the to prove a good title as it was not a defect in appellate court was in no position to evaluate title. The Court further held that as the total the improperly rejected evidence itself. area of the property was identical to that Separately, the Court held that a party which reflected in the Subsidiary Strata Certificate of opposes another party’s attempt to call Titles, the vendor was able to give good title of witnesses to give evidence-in-chief orally the area that he had agreed to sell. The Court should, bar exceptional circumstances, raise also noted that the SDA was too narrow to give all its objections when the other party seeks relief on any ground other than a lack of good leave to dispense with affidavits of evidence- title. The Court, in addition, observed that in in-chief. proceedings in the form of a case stated, questions of law are referred to the court for determination on the basis that the facts are true in a case stated, and there is no burden of proof on either party as the issues to be decided are issues of law.
55 Liquidators of Progen Engineering Pte Ltd Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another v v Progen Holdings Ltd Ho Chin Nguang and others [2010] 4 SLR 1089; [2010] SGCA 31 [2010] 4 SLR 801; [2010] SGCA 34 In this case, the Court of Appeal recognised In this case, the Court of Appeal reinforced that directors have a duty to consider the the paramount importance of respecting and interests of the company’s creditors in making obeying orders of court. The appellants had decisions for the company when the company obtained a Mareva injunction (“the Order”) is insolvent or in a parlous financial position. against the respondents. However, after the The Court expressed the view that such a submission of the affidavit of assets, the duty complements the avoidance provisions respondents went on to spend monthly in preserving the company’s assets for allowances, which the first respondent had distribution to creditors through the received from an Indonesian company (of insolvency regime. It was also clarified that which he owned 90% of the shareholding), such a duty is owed to the company and not on their monthly expenditures. The appellants to any individual creditors. To prevent the obtained leave to apply for an order of collective procedure of insolvency from being committal against the respondents but the undermined, creditors cannot directly recover High Court found that the respondents had from directors without the assistance of not breached the Order. The appellants then liquidators. appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court, in addition, held that the existence In allowing the appeal and imposing a of an established past practice of a transaction financial sanction on the respondents, the during the company’s solvency does not ipso Court held that the monthly allowances facto rebut the presumption of unfair constituted “assets” under the Order and that preference. An established course of practice the Order also applied to the disposal or is relevant if the practices show that the dealing of after-acquired assets. More creditor was providing new value by granting importantly, the Court stated categorically new credit to the company to keep its that the party against whom a Mareva business going, Where that is the case, injunction is issued must obey both the letter payment of monies is motivated by the desire and the spirit of the order. If there is any real to obtain fresh financing to sustain the uncertainty as to the scope of an order, the company’s business, and not by a desire to proper thing for a party to do is to seek the prefer the creditor. assistance of the court or, at the very least, inform the other party of the act that is intended to be carried out. Deliberate concealment or what seems like clever manoeuvres to get round a Mareva injunction would be dealt with accordingly by the court.
56 Daniel Vijay s/o Katherasan and others v MFM Restaurants Pte Ltd and another v Public Prosecutor Fish & Co Restaurants Pte Ltd and another [2010] 4 SLR 1119; [2010] SGCA 33 appeal In this case, the Court of Appeal clarified the [2011] 1 SLR 150; [2010] SGCA 36 law on constructive criminal liability pursuant This appeal concerned an assessment of to s 34 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 damages following judgment for a breach of Rev Ed), which states that “[w]hen a criminal a settlement deed. Considering the issue of act is done by several persons, in furtherance remoteness of damages in contract law, the of the common intention of all, each of such Court of Appeal held that the approach persons is liable for that act in the same advocated by Lord Hoffmann in Transfield manner as if the act were done by him alone”. Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas) [2009] 1 AC 61 (“The Achilleas”), In the Court’s view, a criminal act done by which involved the concept of assumption the actual doer of the act which results in the of responsibility, ought not to be followed. offence charged would be considered to be The Court further held that the two limbs set done in furtherance of the common intention out in Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch of all the offenders only if that common 341; 165 ER 145 (“Hadley”) continue to be intention includes an intention to commit the the governing principles, except to the extent very criminal act done by the actual doer that the approach advocated by Lord which resulted in the offence charged. Hoffmann was already incorporated or According to the Court, this position, which embodied in both limbs in Hadley. reflects the true legislative purpose of s 34, was first laid down by the Judicial Committee The Court also highlighted the conceptual of the Privy Council, and the same position difficulties with the approach in The Achilleas, was taken by the Straits Settlements Court of which appeared to exclude the operation of Criminal Appeal and, subsequently, by the the doctrine of remoteness and the practical Court of Criminal Appeal in Mimi Wong and uncertainties in determining the contracting another v Public Prosecutor [1971–1973] parties’ intentions, and opined that the SLR(R) 412. For constructive liability under s existing distinction drawn between imputed 34 for s 300(c) murder, which provides that knowledge (under the first limb in Hadley) murder is committed if an offender and actual knowledge (under the second intentionally causes bodily injury to another limb in Hadley) provided the court with a person and the “bodily injury intended to be sufficiently nuanced approach towards inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of dealing with whether or not the defendant nature to cause death”, the Court held that concerned had assumed responsibility with there must be a common intention to cause, respect to natural or ordinary loss and specifically, bodily injury that is sufficient in extraordinary loss, respectively. the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
57 Ong Pang Siew v Public Prosecutor Public Prosecutor v Rangasamy [2010] SGCA 37 Subramaniam The appellant appealed against his conviction [2010] SGCA 40 by the High Court on a charge of murdering The prosecution applied by way of a Criminal his step-daughter (“the deceased”). The High Motion to refer a question of law of public Court held that the appellant intended to kill interest to the Court of Appeal. The question the deceased and that the defence of was whether the assumption under s 71A of diminished responsibility did not apply as the Road Traffic Act (Cap 276, 2004 Rev Ed) the appellant was not suffering from any (“the RTA”) applied to an accused charged mental illness at the time of the offence. In under s 67(1)(b) of the RTA where the accused this regard, the opinion of the prosecution’s was not driving a vehicle at the time of arrest. expert was preferred to that of the appellant’s, Section 71A of the RTA provides that for who diagnosed him as suffering from a major offences under ss 67 (drink driving) or 68 depressive disorder. (being in charge of a motor car while under the influence of drugs) the proportion of While the Court of Appeal agreed that the alcohol in an accused’s breath at the time of appellant intended to cause the deceased’s the alleged offence shall be assumed to be death, it was of the view that the defence of not less than that in the specimen of breath diminished responsibility applied. The Court provided by him. The Court held that the was concerned with the distinct lack of assumption could apply. In the light of the thoroughness in the diagnostic process of historical context of ss 67, 68 and 71A and the prosecution’s expert, who had failed, the purpose of the RTA, and having taken inter alia, to adequately consider factors into account Parliament’s uniform and strict which might increase the appellant’s risk of approach towards drink driving, the Court suffering from depression or to interview held that it could not have been intended relevant persons to obtain more information that the assumption under s 71A of the RTA about his mental condition. The Court would not apply to an accused charged under preferred the opinion of the appellant’s expert, s 67(1)(b) of the RTA where the accused was whose diagnostic process was more not driving a vehicle at the time of arrest. comprehensive and detailed, although it noted that more could and should have been done by both experts. In arriving at its decision, the Court also considered non- medical factors such as the appellant’s behaviour before, during and after the offence.
58 Management Corporation Strata Title Plan RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Pte Ltd No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd and others [2010] SGCA 39 [2010] SGCA 43 In this case, the Court of Appeal held that it This appeal raised an important policy issue had inherent jurisdiction to rehear an issue as to how the courts should interpret copyright which it had decided in breach of natural legislation in the light of technological justice and to set aside, in appropriate cases, advances which have clear legitimate and the whole or part of its earlier decision on beneficial uses for the public, but which may that issue. A decision made in breach of the be circumscribed or stymied by expansive rule against bias should be set aside as of claims of existing copyright owners. The right. Where a decision was made without appellant was the owner of an internet-based giving the relevant parties the opportunity to service that allowed its registered users to be heard on certain issues, the aggrieved request the recording of the respondent’s parties should be compensated with a hearing free-to-air shows in Singapore on a device, on those issues, after which the decision may which functioned just like a traditional digital be set aside or rectified. The appellant applied video recorder, called an “iDVR”. The for a declaration that the Court had respondent objected to the appellant’s jurisdiction to set aside a previous decision provision of its iDVR service on the basis of the Court (“the 2008 decision”) on the that the use of the iDVR infringed the assumption that it had acted in breach of respondent’s copyright in its free-to-air shows. natural justice in arriving at the 2008 decision. The Court did not grant the declaration Bearing in mind that the law strives to encourage because the outcome in the 2008 decision, both creativity and innovation for the common which was also premised on two other issues good, as well as the competing interests of which were res judicata, would remain various stakeholders, viz, consumers, content unchanged even if the appellant was heard providers as well as technology and service on that issue. vendors, the Court eventually found in the appellant’s favour. It was of the view that the appellant’s iDVR service represented a significant technological improvement over existing recording methods, and that the appellant did no more than make it more convenient for its users to enjoy the respondent’s shows, an activity which they were already entitled to partake in.
59 Lam Chi Kin David v Deutsche Bank AG The Court hence found the respondent to be [2010] SGCA 42 in breach of its contractual obligations to the This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal appellant. Further, the Court also found that concerning a contract governing foreign the respondent was estopped from closing exchange (“FX”) transactions between the out all of the appellant’s FX contracts on appellant and the respondent. The contract 10 October 2008 as it had also promised the required the latter to give the former one appellant a 48-hour grace period should it business day’s notice for the delivery of make any margin call. Since the FX market additional collateral in the event the latter could be extremely volatile, the Court said made a margin call. When a margin call was that a 48-hour grace period was a very indeed made on 10 October 2008, the valuable right to a sophisticated customer respondent closed out all of the appellant’s like the appellant. The Court also held that FX contracts on the same day. if banks and financial intermediaries engaged in the business of wealth management could not be trusted with their word, they should not be allowed to be in this line of business.
60 Electronic Practice Directions and Court website by all internet users. It contains Electronic Rules of Court the latest updated rules, accompanied by a During the year in review, the Supreme Court subject matter index to make it easier for launched the electronic Practice Directions, users to refer to and access its contents. It or e-PD, to replace the hardcopy edition of also has built-in digital search capabilities, the Supreme Court Practice Directions (“the allowing relevant rules to be located using Practice Directions”). The e-PD became the key words. authoritative version of the Practice Directions from 16 March 2010. Future amendments For today’s litigation lawyer, the e-ROC to the Practice Directions will be made online reduces the time and effort spent going in real time on a paragraph-for-paragraph through the voluminous hardcopy edition of basis, thus doing away with the practice of the Rules of Court to find the relevant rule manually updating hardcopy editions of the for a given situation. Users can also track the Practice Directions by replacing pages. chronology of amendments made to the Rules of Court via a noter-up page found on Through the e-PD, litigation practitioners, the main website. litigants and even members of the public can benefit from ready and convenient access to New Amendments to the Practice the latest version of the Practice Directions Directions and Rules of Court from the Supreme Court’s website. The e-PD In 2010, three amendments to the Supreme boasts a user-friendly interface, including a Court Practice Directions (“the Practice subject matter index, digital search Directions”) and a number of significant capabilities and a list of the latest amendments to the Rules of Court (Cap 322, amendments. It can also be downloaded for R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) were made. free for offline use as a portable electronic book, allowing for greater convenience for Practice Directions Amendment No. 1 of users on the move. 2010 introduced the strict prohibition of video and image recording devices in all Following the successful launch of the e-PD, hearings in open court and chambers from the Supreme Court released the electronic 15 May 2010. It also prohibited any Rules of Court, or e-ROC, on 16 June 2010. communication with external parties during Like the e-PD, the e-ROC is now the a hearing and the audio recording of a hearing authoritative version that replaces the without the prior approval of the Judge or previous hardcopy edition of the Rules of Registrar presiding over the matter. This was Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed). followed, on 7 July 2010, by Practice Directions Amendment No. 2 of 2010, which The e-ROC can be accessed, or downloaded introduced an improved ‘Request for Record as an electronic book, from the Supreme of Hearing’ form to provide clarity as to the
61 information that is required for requests for Other significant amendments would include records of hearings. Practice Directions the amendments to Orders 14 and 91. Order Amendment No. 3 of 2010, which took effect 14 now allows the court to make an order on 23 July 2010, added applications to the for costs to the defendant within the existing High Court under provisions of the Land costs scale if unconditional leave to defend Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 2009 Rev Ed) to an action is granted in a summary judgment the list of applications made by originating application or if the summary judgment summons that should be heard in open court application is dismissed, while Order 91 now rather than in chambers. allows the Registrar to exempt parties from paying fees and to furnish security for costs Amendments made to the Rules of Court in civil cases where the cause or matter relates were gazetted on 22 January 2010, 9 July to criminal proceedings affecting the life or 2010, 9 September 2010 and 26 November liberty of a party. 2010. Some of the amendments were necessitated by amendments to the Supreme Since the introduction of the e-PD and the Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev e-ROC, the Supreme Court has been Ed) and the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, capturing all amendments to the Practice 2007 Rev Ed). Directions and the Rules of Court online and in real time. The amendments resulted in four new Orders being enacted. Three of these – the new Orders 98, 99 and 100 – provided the relevant procedures for making an application to the High Court under the Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed), the Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed) and the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 2009 Rev Ed).
The fourth – the new Order 101 – set out the procedure for the Singapore courts to refer questions of foreign law to the New South Wales courts and vice versa. This was to give effect to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Supreme Courts of Singapore and New South Wales on dealing expeditiously with issues relating to foreign law.
62 ACCESSIBILITY TO THE COURTS ACCESSIBILITY TO THE COURTS
Visit by students from the National University of Singapore. Supreme Court staff engaging teachers at the Connexion 2010 Supreme Court exhibition booth.
Public Outreach and Engagement of Education. The event, held from 2 to Beyond being a body of adjudication, the 3 November 2010, allowed some 450 Supreme Court also conducts public teachers to interact with National Education education programmes to broaden awareness practitioners from government agencies so about the pivotal role of the Judiciary. as to enhance their knowledge, skills and resources in communicating National Key to these efforts is our ongoing outreach Education messages more effectively. The to schools. Visits to the Court building were teachers were able to find out more about organised for over 8,000 students of various the work of the Judiciary and its relevance ages who are studying in Singapore. These to Total Defence at the Supreme Court’s visits helped them to understand more about booth, and also had the opportunity to Singapore’s legal history, informed them about arrange learning visits to the Supreme Court the work of the Supreme Court and for their students. introduced them to the use of technology in the building. Such outreach also involved Over the course of the year, we welcomed facilitating visits organised by independent almost 13,000 local and overseas visitors service providers such as the Singapore who came to learn more about the work of History Consultants. the Supreme Court. These included representatives from overseas judiciaries and In 2010, the Supreme Court also participated government bodies, students and law as an exhibitor on the second day of practitioners. Connexion 2010, an event organised by the Ministry of Defence’s Nexus and the Ministry
64 STAFF AND ORGANISATION STAFF & ORGANISATION
Supreme Court staff in Bintan, Indonesia, for the Corporate Staff at the inaugural Supreme Court Learning Day. Challenge.
Corporate Challenge Learning Day On 5 March 2010, 47 members of the The Supreme Court held its inaugural Supreme Court’s management team attended Learning Day on 11 November 2010 to the day-long Corporate Challenge at Bintan, encourage knowledge sharing and cross- Indonesia. This was the first time that the collaboration among staff. The Supreme Court Corporate Challenge was conducted overseas. Auditorium took on a carnival-like atmosphere with booths and stations set up The day’s programme started with a for staff to engage in many types of interesting brainstorming session to generate ideas for learning activities and acquire esoteric future plans for the Supreme Court. Following nuggets of information. that, members of the management team competed with each other in archery and By coming together in a convivial setting to power paintball, and were given the chance impart and discover knowledge across a wide to drive all-terrain vehicles. These adventure- spectrum of topics, staff had the opportunity based experiential learning activities to collaborate with each other and discover presented an opportunity for members of the just how fun and interactive learning can be. management team to interact with each other The many learning opportunities available and to reinforce a ‘can do’ attitude. included haiku appreciation, how to cook a steak in 10 minutes, choose durians and perform card tricks.
66 Staff Welfare Activities Other activities to encourage work-life In the course of the year, a wide range of balance saw staff becoming acquainted with social and recreational activities were the pleasures of chocolate and coffee, going organised for staff. on an excursion to the Marina Barrage and even having a durian feast in Malaysia. To encourage staff to maintain a healthy The activities for the year came to a rousing lifestyle, the Health and Worklife Balance conclusion with the Year End Fête – the year- Committee organised the inaugural 100km end bash for all staff. Challenge in which staff were challenged to cover a total of 100km on the treadmills, exercise bicycles or elliptical trainers in the Supreme Court’s gymnasium. Sporting enthusiasts were also able to put their skills and teamwork to the test during the Inter- Directorate Street Soccer Tournament, while the third instalment of ‘Walk the Talk’ led staff on a leisure walk-cum-jog across the Marina Bay area from the Supreme Court to the newly-opened Helix Bridge.
Staff outing to the Marina Barrage.
‘Walk the Talk 3’ – the Supreme Court mass walk-cum- jog event.
National Day Observance Ceremony at the Supreme Court.
67 Staff Awards 2010 A number of Supreme Court staff were proud recipients of prestigious awards in 2010.
Five staff were conferred National Day Awards in recognition for their contributions and service. Mr S Kathiarasan received the Commendation Medal, Ms Toh Bee Chuan received the Efficiency Medal, while Mr L Tamil Selvan, Ms Ramaiah Sandhakumali and Ms Santhakumari Moniandy each Judiciary Recreation Club Dinner and Dance 2010. received the Long Service Medal. In addition, the Judiciary Recreation Club organised activities to promote teamwork Additionally, for their commitment to service and camaraderie among staff of the Supreme excellence, Mr Derrick Siew and Mr Muhd Court and the Subordinate Courts. The Hakim Salim were presented the PS21 Star highlights of the year were the Family & Service Award. Sports Fiesta @ Jurong Bird Park and the Dinner & Dance. A National Day Observance Ceremony was also held for staff to celebrate Singapore’s 45th birthday and reaffirm their loyalty to the nation.
68 CORPORATE CALENDAR 2010
9 Jan Opening of the Legal Year / Opening of the Legal Year Dinner 15 Jan Opening of the Legal Year Staff Lunch 27 Jan Workshop on the Art of Chocolate Appreciation 4 Feb – 30 Jun 100km Challenge 2 Mar Innovation Talk by Fredrik Härén 5 Mar Corporate Challenge 10 Mar Staff Learning Visit to Borneo Motors 10 Mar Workshop on Coffee Appreciation 13 Mar Staff Outing to Marina Barrage 20 Mar Judiciary Recreation Club Family & Sports Fiesta 24 Mar – 6 Apr Workshops for Staff Workplan Seminar 30 – 31 Mar ISO 9000: Renewal and Conversion Exercise 12 Apr Innovation Talk by Singapore Chinese Orchestra 15 Apr Staff Workplan Seminar 14 May Dinner for the Judiciary & Forum of Senior Counsel 19 May Public Service Week Observance Ceremony 27 May Eat With Your Family Day 29 May Mass Call 2 Jun Walk the Talk 3 21 – 23 Jun Staff Sports Day 25 Jun Judiciary Recreation Club Movie Night 26 Jun Staff Outing to Malaysia for Durian Fiesta 15 Jul Knowledge Management Excellence Award Onsite Evaluation 19 – 22 Jul Internal ISO 9000 Audit 30 Jul Legal Colloquium 4 Aug Gallup Q12® Employee Engagement Survey Townhall Session 6 Aug National Day Observance Ceremony 29 Sep – 7 Oct Inter-Directorate Street Soccer Tournament 15 Oct Judiciary Recreation Club Dinner & Dance 1 Nov – 14 Jan 2011 Customer Satisfaction Survey 11 Nov Learning Day 23 Nov Health Screening Exercise 24 Nov Service Excellence Sharing 25 Nov Year End Fête
69 REGISTRAR, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, SENIOR ASSISTANT REGISTRARS & ASSISTANT REGISTRARS
01) Mr Leong Kwang Ian 09) Mr Jeyendran Jeyapal 17) Mr Jordan Tan Zhengxian 02) Mr David Lee Yeow Wee 10) Mr Leong Weng Tat 18) Mr Paul Chan Wei Sern 03) Ms Cornie Ng Teng Teng 11) Ms Then Ling 19) Mr Tan Sze Yao 04) Ms Teh Hwee Hwee 12) Ms Eunice Chua Hui Han 20) Mr Lionel Leo Zhen Wei 05) Mr Foo Chee Hock (Registrar) 13) Ms Sngeeta Devi d/o Surannad 21) Mr Teo Guan Siew 06) Mr Yeong Zee Kin 14) Ms Crystal Tan Huiling 22) Mr Peh Aik Hin 07) Mr Francis Ng Yong Kiat 15) Ms Ang Ching Pin 23) Mr Lim Jian Yi 08) Ms Daphne Chang Wei Hsian 16) Ms Denise Wong Huiwen 24) Mr Nathaniel Khng Yong-Ern
Not in picture: Ms Audrey Lim Yoon Cheng (Deputy Registrar), Ms Janice Wong Shi Hui, Ms Tan Wen Hsien
20 21 18 19 22 23 24
10 13 14 15 17 11 12 16
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
70 JUSTICES’ LAW CLERKS
01) Mr Darryl Soh Wen Yan 11) Mr Evans Ng Hian Pheng 21) Mr Kenneth Wong Weixiong 02) Mr Joel Chen Zhi'En 12) Mr Ethan Tan Boon Hua 22) Mr Colin Seow Fu Hong 03) Mr Seow Zhixiang 13) Mr Terence Tan Zhong Wei 23) Ms Chua Shirin 04) Mr Zhuo Wenzhao 14) Mr Jeremy Yeo Shenglong 24) Mr Justin Yeo Rong Wei 05) Ms Elaine Chew Yi-Ling 15) Mr Lim How Khang 25) Ms Seraphina Fong Mian Yi 06) Ms Vanessa Yeo Xue Ying 16) Ms Crystal Tan Yan Shi 26) Mr Kelvin Kow Weijie 07) Ms Chee Min Ping 17) Ms Ruth Yeo Su An 27) Mr Chong Kah Kheng 08) Mr Shaun Leong Li Shiong 18) Ms Elaine Liew Ling Wei 28) Mr Kevin Tan Eu Shan 09) Ms Serene Chew 19) Ms Karin Lai Yiling 10) Mr Colin Liew Wey-Ren 20) Mr Rajaram Vikram Raja
Not in picture: Mr Louis Ng Shi Zheng, Mr Tan Kai Liang, Mr Adrian James
21 22 28 23 24 25 26 27 10 11 12 14 19 20 13 15 16 17 18
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
71 CORPORATE SERVICES DIRECTORATE
13 14 15 12 11 08 09 10 01 02 06 07 03 04 05
01) Mr Chia Kum Khuen (AD, Security) 06) Mr Max Tan Lee Kien 12) Mr Jack Lim Soon Kok 02) Ms Pam Lim Chui Chui 07) Mr Albert Fan Chee Peng 13) Mr Muhammad Hakim Bin Salim (Director, Corporate Services) 08) Ms Wong Loo Seng 14) Ms Lee Kam Yoke 03) Mrs Selina Khor (AD, Admin) 09) Ms Tay Shu Ying 15) Mr Mark Cheong Yew Kay 04) Ms Kate Lim Kai Ling 10) Ms Margaret Tan 05) Mr Misri Bin Samsudin 11) Mr Tay Wee Boon
Not in picture: Mr Ong Lian Shin (AD, Office Management), Mr Michael Ho How Yeam, Ms Serene Lim Chau Ti
COURTS SECTION
13 14 16 15 1718 07 11 12 01 02 05 06 08 09 10 03 04
01) Ms Agnes Yao Hui 07) Mrs Adelia Sim-Tay Tzu Ching 13) Ms Patricia Anne See Lay Wah 02) Ms Koh Beng Yan 08) Ms Leana Lim Kim Tee 14) Ms Da'ahliah Bte Samsuri 03) Ms Carol Yap Wee Loo 09) Ms Tay Lee Hoon 15) Ms Anne Sim Hoon Kim 04) Ms Ainon Bte Samsuddin 10) Ms Jessie Teo Cheng Cheng 16) Ms Ramaiah Sandhakumali 05) Ms Teresa Lee Lie Choo 11) Ms Myra Chia Kam Sow 17) Ms Susan Ho Soo Fun 06) Mrs Yong Mei June 12) Ms Leong Yu Fun 18) Mrs Quek Swee Peng
Not in picture: Mr Raveendran s/o Sundram Pillai, Mr Eugene Chng Eng Hai, Ms Jane Tan Guan Noi, Ms Cylin Chua Swee Lin, Ms Oh Soh Wan, Ms Ginny Tham Lye Leng, Ms Norashidah Bte Laily, Ms Arneda Bte Jasman, Ms Fiona Lau May Lian, Ms Alice Chua Tuan Yong, Ms Sim Ser Kim, Ms Haryati Bte Sungit, Ms Noriani Bte Masat
72 COURT ORDERLIES
10 11 12 13 09 07 01 02 03 04 05 06 08
01) Mr Ahmad Hassin Bin Salim 06) Mr Edwin Tan Jui Meng 11) Mr Jimmy Ho Weng Fu 02) Mr Mohamad Arshad Bin Jaffar 07) Mr Azhar Bin Johari 12) Mr Kamarudin Bin Ismail 03) Mr Jonathan Lim Boon Tay 08) Mr Jasman Bin Senen 13) Mr Iskandar Bin Ramly 04) Mr Mohamad Ariff Bin Mohd Esa 09) Mr Bala Murugan s/o Rasalingam 05) Mr Ishak Bin Ali 10) Mr A Subramaniam Arunasalam
Not in picture: Mr L Tamil Selvan, Mr Terence Teo Tow Kwong, Mr Low Chung Kong, Mr Simon Sim Boon Hee, Mr Zulkarnain Bin Mohamed Salleh, Mr Gabriel s/o V M S Nathan, Mr Lee Ping Ru
LIBRARY
04 05 02 03 01
01) Ms Seah Poh Geok 02) Ms Tik Lee Hwa 03) Mr Mohammad Fairul Bin Ahmad Suliman 04) Ms Koh Swee Ngor 05) Ms Junaidah Bee Bte Abu Bakar
73 FINANCE & FINANCIAL POLICY DIRECTORATE
05 04 02 03 01
01) Mr George Lee Yew Wah (DD, Finance and Financial Policy) 02) Mr Oh Chong Onn (Director, Finance and Financial Policy) 03) Ms Goh Cheng Hsien (AD, Finance and Financial Policy) 04) Ms Santhakumari d/o Moniandy 05) Mr Henry Seet
Not in picture: Ms Sally Yeo Kim Lian
CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTORATE
08
07 03 05 06 01 04 02
01) Mr Nigel Sim Kian Huat (DD, Corporate Communications) 02) Ms Chew Chien Way (AD, Corporate Communications) 03) Ms Elaine Tan Huay Ling 04) Ms Joyce Ho Sow Chue 05) Ms Nur Marrisa Bte Mohamed Isa 06) Ms Bridgitte Lee Jiahui 07) Ms Miruna d/o Ranjan 08) Mr Daniel Lim Chwee Yong
74 LEGAL DIRECTORATE, CIVIL
13 14 15 16 17 12 03 01 05 07 02 10 04 06 08 09 11
01) Ms Jasmine Ong Bee Soon 06) Ms S Vasuki 12) Mr Suleiman Bin Shariman (DD, Legal) 07) Ms Ng Ah What 13) Ms Rahmania Bte Ali 02) Ms Tang Meen-Er (Director, Legal) 08) Ms Jarinah Bte Mustafa 14) Ms Tan Li Ping 03) Mr Paul Lee Gek Boon (AD, Civil) 09) Ms Nur Alfishahrin Mohd 15) Ms Jasvier Kaur d/o Najar Singh 04) Ms Kamisah Bte Mohamed Ibrahim 10) Ms Rameeza Bte Haja Maideen 16) Ms Lee Mei Teng 05) Ms Saimah Bte Yayah 11) Mr Jailani Bin Jayos 17) Mr Dave Lee Chun Leong
Not in picture: Ms Rashida Bte Mohamad Yatim, Mr Mohamed Azhar Bin Haji Said Shukor, Mr Harry Lim, Ms Pam Ong, Ms Vanessa Chan Yoke Leng, Ms R K Rani, Mr S Raventhiran, Ms Nancy Loong, Ms Irene Boey Suay Leng
LEGAL DIRECTORATE, ENFORCEMENT & SUPPORT SERVICES
13 14 0809 02 07 03 04 06 10 12 01 05 11
01) Ms Tang Meen-Er (Director, Legal) 04) Ms Wong Yen Peng 10) Mr Zulkarnain Bin Yusoff 02) Mr Kathiarasan s/o Supramaniam 05) Ms Harlina Bte Tambi 11) Mr Jimmy Liew Chee Heng (AD,Enforcement & Support 06) Ms Angela Chopard 12) Mr Mohamad Hisham Bin Services) 07) Mr Ho Nyuk Chang Samsudin 03) Ms Jasmine Ong Bee Soon 08) Mr Muhammad Bin Mohamed Ali 13) Ms Rammiah Supuletchimi (DD, Legal) 09) Mr Wong Chee Kin 14) Ms Yogeswari d/o N Vadivellu
Not in picture: Mr Khoo Seng Hang, Mr Yang Rashidi Bin Samsudin, Mr Ju Toong Cheong, Mr Abdul Rahim Bin Sanoosi, Mr Raymond Yeo Boon Tat, Mr Shabab s/o Ali Qadir, Ms Emily Koh
75 LEGAL DIRECTORATE, STATISTICS & LEARNING UNIT, SPECIALISED & INSOLVENCY SECTION
06 05 09 10 12 04 14 03 07 11 13 08 01 02
01) Ms Tang Meen-Er (Director, Legal) 04) Ms Norizzah Bte Abdul Aziz 11) Ms Haryati Bte Jumahat 02) Ms Jasmine Ong Bee Soon 05) Ms Katy Tay Wei Ling 12) Ms Patsy Neo Geok Ling (DD, Legal) 06) Ms Santhi d/o Pannirselvam 13) Ms June Teo Swee Choon 03) Ms Chang Siew Teen 07) Ms Deviki d/o Rengupillai Ramiah 14) Ms T Ananthi (AD, Specialised and Insolvency, 08) Ms Noraizah Bte Hamzah Originating Summons, Statistics and 09) Ms Irnawati Bte Akub Learning Unit) 10) Ms Ismaniza Bte Mohamad Ibrahim Not in picture: Ms Molly Teh Meow Leng, Ms Gan Li Mei
CORPORATE PLANNING DIRECTORATE
17 18 19 20 21 22 14 11 13 06 02 04 09 15 01 03 05 07 12 16 08 10
01) Mr Yahya bin Abu Hassan 06) Ms Tan Shi Yong Selina 15) Ms Rageswari d/o Suppiah (Head Interpreter, Malay) 07) Ms Geeta d/o Vellu 16) Ms Mariana Bte Osman 02) Mr Masilamany Gnanaraj s/o 08) Ms Soh Hui San 17) Ms Liu Chee Kwan M Jesudasan 09) Ms Yvonne Leung Shun Yee 18) Ms Wong Yin Ling (Head Interpreter, Indian) 10) Ms Nooreini Bte Atan 19) Ms Leong Yuan Hong 03) Mr Chong Hoong Sang 11) Ms Normah Bte Omar 20) Ms Marina Wang Meng Si (Director, Corporate Planning) 12) Ms Alamelu 21) Ms Neo Bee Lian 04) Mr Lim Cher Yeow 13) Mr Daing Mohamed Farhan 22) Ms Yao Huijun (Head Interpreter, Chinese) Bin Hashim 05) Ms Toh Bee Chuan (Manager, DTS) 14) Mr Chris Teo Guo Wei Not in picture: Ms Lim Puay Siang, Ms Ng Lian Hua, Ms Woon Yoon Ngeong, Mr Derrick Siew Yew Kheong, Mr Ang Boon Kiong
76 LEARNING AND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
02 01 03
01) Mr Lim Sock Siong 02) Mr Ravi Prakash (AD, Learning and Management) 03) Mr Kenneth Loke Youwei
COMPUTER AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT
09 10 08 07 06 01 05 02 03 04
01) Mr Patrick Ng 02) Ms Carrine Teh Ah Seok (Senior Executive IT Manager) 03) Ms Jasmine Lai 04) Ms Stella Kong 05) Ms Goh Yin Chiat 06) Ms Anne Tan 07) Ms Aileen Choo 08) Mr Chua Hung Guan 09) Mr Ray Goh 10) Mr Derrick Tan
77 SUPREME COURT ORGANISATION CHART
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGES & JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS
REGISTRAR
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
SENIOR ASSISTANT REGISTRARS & ASSISTANT REGISTRARS JUSTICES’ LAW CLERKS
SENIOR DIRECTOR SENIOR DIRECTOR SENIOR DIRECTOR (Personnel) (FFP) (Corporate Communications) SENIOR DIRECTOR (Office Mgmt & Security)
DIRECTOR DIRECTOR (Corp Svcs) (FFP) DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR (Corporate (FFP) Communications)
AD (HR) AD (Office AD LIBRARY AD AD AD Mgmt) (Security) (FFP) (Corporate Communications) (Admin)
SENIOR HEAD SENIOR (HR) HEAD (Office HEAD Mgmt) SENIOR SENIOR HEADS (HR) HEAD (Corporate Communications) (Security) HEAD HEAD (Finance) HEAD (Procurement) HEADS (Admin) HEAD (Corporate Communications) HEAD (Security) HEAD (Bldg (Trg & Mgmt) Devt)
78 LEGEND AD Assistant Director Enf Enforcement Admin Administration FFP Finance & Financial Policy Bldg Mgmt Building Management HR Human Resource CISD Computer Information KM Knowledge Management Systems Department LMD Learning and Management Corp Planning Corporate Planning Department Corp Svcs Corporate Services Office Mgmt Office Management DTS Digital Transcription OS Originating Summons Services S&I Specialised & Insolvency DT Sect Disciplinary Tribunal SLU Statistics & Learning Unit Secretariat Supp Svcs Support Services EFS Electronic Filing System Trg & Devt Training & Development
SENIOR DIRECTOR SENIOR DIRECTOR SENIOR SENIOR (Legal) (Corporate Planning) DIRECTOR DIRECTOR (LMD) (CISD)
DIRECTOR SENIOR DIRECTOR (Compliance DIRECTOR AD (Legal) EXECUTIVE & Legal) (Corporate Planning) (LMD) IT MANAGER
DEPUTY DIRECTOR (Legal)
AD AD RESOURCE AD (Crime (SLU/ MANAGEMENT/ BUSINESS HEADS MANAGER LEGAL (Civil) & Enf) S&I/ SUPPORT ANALYST (Interpreters) (DTS) ANALYST OS) DIVISION
E-LEARNING HEAD/ ANALYST/ SENIOR MANAGER CHIEF SENIOR KM PROGRAMMER POLICY BAILIFF (Diary Management) OFFICER ANALYST (Sheriff) HEAD E-LEARNING HEADS/ & HEAD HEAD ADMINISTRATOR SENIOR HEAD/ (SLU) (Operations) CASE SENIOR MANAGERS CASE HEAD/ HEARING (Civil Trials MANAGER SENIOR SUPPORT & Appeals) (Criminal CASE MANAGERS Trials & MANAGER Appeals) (S&I/OS) HEAD/MANAGER (DT Section)
79
1 SUPREME COURT LANE SINGAPORE 178879
WWW.SUPREMECOURT.GOV.SG
The electronic version of the Annual Report 2010 is available on our website.