NEWS Letter from the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts

I refer to the above dialogue between the Subordinate Courts and the Law Society on 27 March 2006.
 

As encapsulated in our Justice Statement, the Civil Justice Division model seeks to achieve Effective and Fair Dispute Resolution. To this end, we firmly believe that adjudication should be a last resort. CDR is accordingly promoted at the PDRC as a means to encourage and assist parties to resolve their matters without trial. This saves costs for all parties. It also helps to preserve relationships within families, the workplace, and the wider community.
 

CDR settlement conferences, by their nature, may involve rounds of intense and rigorous discussions, and may take a significant amount of time. The motivation for these efforts is never to force any settlement, but rather, to ‘go the extra mile’ to allow the settlement process the time and space to bring parties closer to settlement, by facilitating negotiations and developing proposals that stand a chance of mutual acceptance.
 

The mediation models in CDR are essentially the early neutral evaluation model and the facilitative mediation models. These are best practice models. This motivation to go ‘the extra mile’ is embedded in these models. In any event, CDR is a voluntary process; the outcome is consensual on the part of the litigating parties.
 

On the related question of whether parties with weak cases may use CDR to delay due process, it should be noted that CDR is consensual. Any party suspicious of the motives of the other should withhold consent and proceed to trial instead. Accordingly, there should not be any opportunities for such manipulation; and the perception is quite unfounded.
 

With regard to the Civil Trial Courts, as with CDR, we should reiterate that it is not and has never been the policy to compel parties to settle. There is no reason for the Subordinate Courts to do so. The judges take pains to ensure that parties are made aware at all times that any decision whether to settle a case or to proceed with trial lies with them and with their counsel. In many instances, it is the parties who ask the court for some time to allow them to explore settlement. You may also be assured that our judges, when allowing time for parties to explore settlement, will always have regard to the total number of days that a particular case is set down for and will ensure that settlement attempts by parties are not disproportionate to the hearing time.
 

On the issue of fixing of civil trial dates in tranches, as mentioned at the dialogue, we have to balance the interest of parties in having an uninterrupted number of hearing days with the need to ensure efficient use of trial dates. There have been many instances where cases are resolved at the door of the courts or while the trial is in progress by the parties, with wastage of scheduled hearing dates. As a public institution, the Subordinate Courts are duty bound to maximize its finite court resources for all court users. I would like to ask the Law Society to urge its members to conduct their cases without wastage of scheduled hearing dates accordingly.

In this regard, in cases where good reasons are shown, we have generally endeavoured to accommodate parties who request a long uninterrupted stretch of hearing dates: for example, cases involving foreign witnesses and parties who have to travel to Singapore for trials.
 

On the issue of double fixing for all types of cases, no specific details have been furnished to us at the dialogue. Double fixing is not a norm in our calendaring. Nonetheless, should instances of double fixing arise, parties should immediately raise their concerns to the judge/registrar conducting the Pre-Trial Conference. In the event the matter still cannot be resolved, parties can write in to Registrar, Subordinate Courts and furnish the case details for further consideration.

In conclusion, we welcome the opportunity to clear any misconceptions. We should add that it is difficult to address the concerns raised without further particulars. To this end, we appreciate your publicising the contents of this letter to your members. We would also welcome details of any particular cases that they may wish to surface through the Law Society on order for us to fully investigate any such concerns.