Digest 8

Pursuant to Order 5, Rule 3 of the ROC 2021, the Court may order the parties to attempt to resolve the dispute by amicable resolution. If a party informs the Court that the party does not wish to attempt to resolve the dispute by amicable resolution, the Court may order the party to submit a sealed document setting out the party’s reasons for such refusal.⁽⁵⁾   

For further information, please refer to Digest 2A. 

If the Court orders a party to submit a sealed document setting out the party’s reasons for refusing to attempt ADR pursuant to Order 5, Rule 3(3) of the ROC 2021, the party is to file the sealed document through the electronic filing service into the case file under “ADR Sealed Document” within 7 days after the date of the order of court, unless the Court otherwise directs. 

The “ADR Sealed Document” does not need to be served on the other party or parties to the case.

The “ADR Sealed Document” will be sealed upon acceptance by the Registry. Apart from the filing party, the “ADR Sealed Document” will not be available for inspection by any other party or the trial judge, until the issue of costs of the action is to be considered.

To assist the parties in conceptualising the roadmap of their case, parties may have to file the following case management documents: 

(i) a Pre-Case Conference Questionnaire (“PCQ”) prior to the first Registrar’s Case Conference (“RCC”); 

(ii) an expert witness template prior to the RCC where the issue of expert evidence is to be discussed where parties wish to adduce expert evidence; 

(iii) List of Issues (“LOI”) to identify the principal issues in dispute and enable the Court and parties to determine matters such as the scope of production of documents and the scope of factual and expert evidence (if any) which should be adduced; and 

(iv) a Single Application Pending Trial (“SAPT”) Checklist if directed by the Court, after the SAPTs have been filed by the parties.

For further information on the above, please refer to Digests 2A and 3.

For ease of reference, further details on the above case management documents can be found at:

(i) paras 56(1) to (4) on the PCQ and the fixing of the first RCC;

(ii) paras 56(5) to (7) on LOI;  

(iii) paras 56(8) and (9) on the expert witness template; and 

(iv) paras 56(12) to (16) on the SAPT Checklist. 

Pursuant to Order 8, Rule 1(2) of ROC 2021, a claimant applying for the Court’s approval to serve an originating process or other court document out of Singapore must file a supporting affidavit stating, among others, why the Court has the jurisdiction, or is the appropriate court, to hear the action. 

To show why the Court is the appropriate court to hear the action, a claimant must include in the supporting affidavit any relevant information showing that:

(i) there is a good arguable case that there is sufficient nexus to Singapore;

(ii) Singapore is the forum conveniens; and 

(iii) there is a serious question to be tried on the merits of the claim. 

A list of factors, which are non-exhaustive and may be referred to by the claimant in the supporting affidavit, are set out in para 63(3). 

For further information on the above, please refer to Digest 1.

Order 9, Rule 9(7) of ROC 2021 sets out the types of applications which may be taken out by any party at any time and without the Court’s direction or approval.

Order 9, Rule 9(8) and (10) of ROC 2021 further provides that:

(i) The Court’s approval to file further applications other than those directed at a case conference must be sought by letter setting out the essence of the intended application and the reasons why it is necessary at that stage of the proceedings. 

(ii) No application may be taken out during the period stating 14 days before the commencement of the trial and ending when the Court has determined the merits of the action, except in a special case and with the trial Judge’s approval. 

For further information on the SAPT, please refer to Digest 3. 

Where a party wishes to file further applications other than those directed at a case conference, the party must first obtain the Court’s approval by filing a Request in the manner and form prescribed in Form 9 of Appendix B. The details are set out in paras 66(4) to (8). Please also note the relevant fees where the intended application is filed subsequent to the SAPT and is one that should have been dealt with under the SAPT as set out in paras 66(9) and (10). 

Order 3, Rule 2(4)(e) of ROC 2021 provides that where there is non-compliance with the ROC 2021, any other written law, the Court’s orders or directions or any PDs, the Court may, among other things, impose a late filing fee of S$50 for each day that a document remains unfiled after the expiry of the period within which the document is required to be filed, excluding non-court days.

Para 100 provides an illustration of how the late filing fees are computed.

Pursuant to Order 9, Rule 25(9) of ROC 2021, the Court in an action commenced by an originating claim, must give directions to the parties to file and serve:

(i) their affidavits-of-evidence-in-chief or other affidavits (if such directions have not been given earlier);

(ii) the bundles of documents; and 

(iii) their opening statements (with a page limit of 25 pages) without the need for bundles of authorities. 

Pursuant to Order 9, Rule 25(10) of ROC 2021, the bundles of documents mentioned above must contain, among other things, the last pleading (which incorporates all the previous pleadings).

Paras 102(7) to (9), as well as Form 17 of Appendix B, set out how the last pleading table is to prepared where directed by the Court as well as the preparation of the trial bundle of documents. Please note that there is no requirement to file a set down bundle under ROC 2021.