Official website links end with .gov.sg
A Singapore Government Agency Website
Secure websites use HTTPS
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon: Keynote Speech at the Small Claims Tribunals 40th Anniversary Symposium
Small Claims Tribunals 40th Anniversary Symposium
“The Small Claims Tribunals and the Delivery of Justice: The Past, Present and Future”
Wednesday, 16 April 2025
The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon*
Supreme Court of Singapore
The Honourable Minister of State for Law and Transport, Mr Murali Pillai SC
Presiding Judge of the State Courts, Justice Vincent Hoong
My fellow Judges
Deputy Attorneys-General
Distinguished guests
Ladies and gentlemen
I. Introduction
1. A very good morning to all of you. I am delighted to be here with you today at this Symposium, which commemorates and celebrates the 40th anniversary of the Small Claims Tribunals (or “SCTs”). Over the last four decades, the SCTs have established themselves as a key part of our system for delivering accessible and high-quality justice to the community. This 40th anniversary is a significant milestone that gives us occasion not only to reflect on how far the SCTs have come, but also to develop our vision for the next chapter of their journey.
2. That journey has, I suggest, been characterised by three broad themes: practicality, proportionality, and purpose. These have shaped the creation and development of the SCTs, and should continue to guide their evolution. In my address this morning, I will explore these themes in three broad parts, with reference to the SCTs’ past, present and future.
II. The past
3. Let me begin with the past, by looking back to where this journey started. The SCTs were introduced to meet a real and practical need, and that was to empower consumers to protect themselves against errant merchants.(1) It was observed at the time that, although some consumers were becoming more aware of their rights, there were limited avenues for them to assert those rights against unscrupulous sellers of goods or suppliers of services.(2) One avenue was to threaten such merchants with adverse publicity, whether through public complaints or the Consumers Association of Singapore. But, on its own, this was often of limited effectiveness against recalcitrant merchants, and it also did not offer meaningful recourse for losses that might already have been sustained by the consumer.(3)
4. The alternative was to commence legal proceedings in the civil courts. But this was, in many cases, not a real or viable alternative. The technical and procedural complexities of the legal process, and the cost and time that was inevitably involved, were often prohibitive for ordinary consumers, especially as these would usually be wholly disproportionate to the value of what was at stake.(4) These challenges could pose a powerful disincentive against pursuing what was otherwise meritorious claims.
5. This provided the impetus for the establishment of the SCTs, which commenced their operations in 1985. The SCTs were designed to provide a new avenue for consumers and suppliers to resolve small-value disputes in a way that was time- and cost-efficient, and more accessible to the ordinary women and men who might become embroiled in such disputes. The response of our justice system to this practical need also reflects an early recognition of the value of proportionality. But this, I mean the idea that legal processes should be tailored to the quantum, nature and complexity of the claims they are aimed at resolving. It is simply not realistic or sensible to expect parties disputing over a few thousand dollars to litigate in the same way as parties to a multi-million-dollar dispute. But I emphasise that this in no way diminishes the importance of the former, smaller claims, because even claims that may seem relatively small can mean a great deal to those disputing them. This, coupled with the frequency with which such disputes can arise, made it vital that meaningful recourse could be found within the justice system.
III. Present
6. And so the SCTs were born. In the four decades that followed, the SCTs have grown and matured from a rather bold experiment(5) to a cornerstone of our system for delivering justice in small-value disputes. Today, the SCTs make two essential contributions to our justice system:
(a) first, they provide an effective forum for resolving small claims in a way that is practical and yet principled; and
(b) second, they are a key pillar of our Judiciary’s institutional efforts to advance access to justice.
A. The SCTs as an effective dispute resolution forum
7. Let me first touch on the SCTs’ role as an effective dispute resolution forum for smaller claims, and one which balances principle with practicality.
8. Over time, the SCTs’ jurisdiction has expanded considerably, in terms both of the value as well as the type of the claims that they deal with.
(a) Turning first to the value of these claims, the SCTs originally only heard claims of up to $2,000.(6) Today, the prescribed limit has increased tenfold to include claims of up to $20,000, and even $30,000 if both parties consent.(7) This was intended to allow more parties to avail themselves of the more affordable and streamlined procedures available in the SCTs,(8) and to keep pace with changing market conditions such as inflation.(9)
(b) The SCTs have also come to deal with a significantly wider range of types of claims. In keeping with the reason for their establishment, the SCTs initially only had jurisdiction to determine disputes arising from contracts for the sale of goods or the provision of services.(10) The intention was to see how the SCTs worked in practice before considering whether to extend their jurisdiction to other categories of disputes.(11) Since then, the SCTs’ jurisdiction has expanded to encompass several other types of small claims, including claims in tort relating to property damage, and claims relating to contracts for the lease of residential premises not exceeding two years.(12) This, like the increase in the monetary jurisdiction of the SCTs, responded to the practical needs of our community and the types of disputes that consumers were likely to be involved in.(13) For example, the amendments that gave the SCTs jurisdiction over property damage claims were prompted by the fact that many complaints that had been received involved damage to shared areas between neighbours’ homes as a result of renovation works.(14)
9. This expansion of the SCTs’ jurisdiction over time reflects a recognition of the tremendous value that they have brought and continue to bring to our justice system, and their utility in resolving small claims of various kinds. But notwithstanding these significant changes, the core features of the SCTs’ systems and processes have remained. These hallmarks of justice in the SCTs, of which I will highlight three, make them uniquely suited to resolving the disputes that come before them.
10. The first is the low cost of participating in SCT proceedings. The SCTs’ filing fees have remained substantially unchanged over the last 40 years, with individual claimants still able to file claims of up to $5,000 on paying a flat fee of only $10. There are no additional fees for filing supporting documents and other applications thereafter.(15) The cost of pursuing a claim in the SCTs is therefore minimal. This not only ensures that litigants with genuine grievances are not shut out from the justice system on account of financial constraints, but also secures proportionality between the cost of pursing a claim and the value of that claim.
11. Second, the SCTs’ informal processes and simplified rules enable them to resolve disputes in a way that achieves substantial, practical justice. Proceedings before the SCTs are conducted “in an informal manner”,(16) and the SCTs are not bound by the strict rules of evidence that would otherwise apply in legal proceedings.(17) These can seem obscure and be daunting to laypersons. The SCTs are also tasked with attempting to bring the parties to an agreed settlement, and if that is not possible, to determine the dispute “according to the substantial merits and justice of the case”. In doing so, the SCTs are required to have regard to the law, but are not bound to give effect to strict legal technicalities.(18) All this goes hand in hand with the requirement that parties before the SCTs must present their own cases and cannot be represented by lawyers,(19) which also helps to minimise costs and the risk of a party being disadvantaged simply because she might not be able to afford legal representation.(20)
12. Third, the SCTs adopt a judge-led approach, pursuant to which the tribunal is not only required to identify the relevant issues, but also to ensure that the relevant evidence is adduced in the proceedings.(21) This marks a departure from the fundamentally adversarial nature of our court proceedings, and recognises that, especially in contexts where there may be significant imbalances of information or resources between the parties, justice may be better served by adopting an approach that empowers the judge herself to inquire into relevant matters even when these are not raised by the parties.(22)
13. These features demand a great deal from our judges who hear cases in the SCTs. They are required to play a more active role in managing and conducting the proceedings, and must be alive to the host of issues and evidence that may be relevant to the fair determination of the dispute, while having regard to legal principles and maintaining the high standards of quality that the public rightfully expects of our Judiciary. But these features are what distinguishes the SCTs’ model of dispute resolution, and what empowers them to deliver substantive justice to the parties in ways that might not have been possible within the constraints of the traditional model of adversarial court proceedings.
B. The SCTs as a driver of access to justice.
14. Beyond providing an effective dispute resolution forum, the SCTs have also played an essential role in the Judiciary’s mission of advancing access to justice.
15. Indeed, access to justice is woven into the DNA of the SCTs. The SCTs have been designed to empower ordinary women and men to seek redress for the kinds of legal problems that they are perhaps most likely to face in their daily transactions and interactions with one another, and to do so in a speedy and inexpensive manner. And the distinctive features of tribunal justice have ameliorated the impact of gaps in resources and legal literacy that might otherwise have prevented laypersons from participating meaningfully in legal proceedings and having a fair chance to present their cases.
16. The SCTs have also featured prominently in various initiatives to enhance access to justice in innovative ways. At the official opening of the State Courts Towers two years ago, I observed that – as the primary point of contact between our people and our justice system – it was unsurprising that the State Courts were the focal point of our efforts to improve the delivery of justice and to ensure its accessibility.(23) This is perhaps nowhere more true than in the SCTs. Let me give two examples.
17. The first is the Community Justice and Tribunals System (or “CJTS”), which was launched in 2017. The CJTS provides a common online filing and case management platform not only for disputes filed in the SCTs, but also for disputes in other State Courts tribunals and the Protection from Harassment Court. The CJTS was a significant step forward in at least three ways:
(a) First, it has made filing and case management far more accessible. The CJTS enables the parties to file, manage and organise their court documents and to make, view and monitor their applications anytime and anywhere, at their convenience. It was also designed to be intuitive and easy for lay users to navigate.(24)
(b) Second, the CJTS offers practical assistance with navigating the justice system. For example, it requires prospective claimants to complete a simple pre-filing assessment, which draws their attention to various procedural and substantive issues that they should consider before filing their claims. Among other things, this prompts them to consider whether their claim is of a type that falls outside the SCTs’ jurisdiction, and whether they have the documents and other evidence that may be needed to support various aspects of their claim.(25)
(c) Third, the CJTS facilitates alternative dispute resolution. It can be used by the parties to conduct negotiations or participate in mediation virtually.(26) This may enable the parties to reach an amicable resolution without the need for further legal proceedings, which may well be the most appropriate method of resolving their dispute in the prevailing circumstances.
18. Second, and more recently, the SCTs have been at the forefront of the Singapore Courts’ pioneering collaboration with the legal technology start-up Harvey AI, to harness the potential of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to assist self-represented persons. AI-powered tools can now be used to translate a user’s choice of documents within the CJTS. In time, AI-driven tools may also be able to help self-represented persons to file their claims, understand what evidence they need to produce, organise their materials and even to present their cases, summarise documents, and possibly even provide an assessment of their chances of success.(27)
19. These efforts to enhance access to justice in the context of small claims are especially important because, perhaps counter-intuitively, it is in these kinds of cases that the justice gap may be widest. These disputes are often legally straightforward, and yet the parties involved may be prevented or deterred from accessing justice because of the practical obstacles – like the time and cost that inheres in navigating the legal process – that stand in the way of asserting or defending their rights. Innovative solutions that harness the power of new technologies can go a long way towards bridging these gaps, and can do so in ways and at a scale that would not be possible if we were to rely on human industry alone.(28)
20. Securing access to justice is, in turn, a crucial component of our efforts to safeguard public trust in our justice system as a whole. And the trust that our society places in the SCTs in particular is reflected in the increasing number of people who turn to the SCTs to resolve their disputes. The number of cases filed in the SCTs has increased over the last few years,(29) and reached nearly 12,000 last year.(30) This demonstrates the immense contributions of the SCTs, not only in resolving disputes, but also more broadly in delivering justice to our wider community.
IV. The future
21. The SCTs have made great strides in the four decades since their establishment. But they cannot stand still, and must continue adapting to changing circumstances and needs while staying true to their central purpose. That brings me to the final part of my address this morning. As we look to the future, I suggest that there are two key areas of change that we should pay close attention to.
A. Changes in small claims
22. The first lies in the kinds of small claims that may call for resolution through the SCTs. In the years to come, we may need to contend with changes in both the complexity and the nature of such disputes.
23. First, the SCTs are not immune to the wider trend of the “complexification” of disputes.(31) In particular, they have increasingly been confronted with greater evidential complexity, as the ease with which data can be electronically generated, stored and shared has often led to copious amounts of documentary evidence being placed before the SCTs. This is so even in cases that are not perhaps legally or factually complex.(32) Technological tools, such as AI-driven summarisation tools, may provide part of the solution; but these will likely not provide a complete answer. Other measures may need to be explored as well, to ensure that the volume of material that the SCTs are required to grapple with does not become wholly disproportionate to the true complexity of the dispute and consequently hamper their ability to deliver efficient and high-quality justice.
24. Second, the nature and complexion of small claims is likely to continue to evolve, with different types of disputes gaining prominence as a result of broader changes in society. Earlier, I highlighted the expansion of the SCTs’ jurisdiction over time in response to changes in market conditions and in the types of small claims that were likely to arise, as well as in their frequency. It may become necessary to consider whether the SCTs’ jurisdiction should be expanded further in response to new practical needs. Any such expansion will need to take account of, and strike a careful balance between two important considerations: on the one hand, extending the benefits of the SCTs to a wider range of disputes; and on the other, safeguarding their essential purpose of providing a proportionate and efficient means and forum for resolving small claims.(33)
B. Changes in the parties appearing before the SCTs
25. Apart from changes in small claims themselves, we can also expect changes in the parties who appear before the SCTs. The SCTs’ systems and processes should continue to be alive to the varying levels of legal as well as technological literacy in the communities that we serve. While technological tools may have made justice systems much more accessible, such tools will themselves not be equally accessible to all, and the SCTs must be vigilant to ensure that the “digital divide” does not leave behind those who might be less technologically savvy.(34) Equally, the SCTs will need to guard against improper or careless uses of technology – and in particular, generative AI – in the material that is placed before them.(35)
26. The expectations and mindsets of those coming before the SCTs may also evolve and, with this, the way in which they conduct themselves in SCT proceedings. While many litigants have genuine claims and are respectful of the legal process, there are also some who engage in unreasonable and even abusive behaviour. It may be necessary to study any relevant trends and consider what steps we might need to take to guard against such abuses and to provide sufficiently robust support and protection for the judges, officers and processes of the SCTs, while maintaining the informality of these proceedings and the SCTs’ role in advancing access to justice.
27. The SCTs will need to move with the times to navigate these challenges and others that lie ahead. But they should, I suggest, continue to be guided by the same themes that have characterised their development thus far – that is, practicality, proportionality, and a strong sense of their purpose. With these guideposts in mind, I am confident that the SCTs will meet these challenges and seize the opportunities that lie ahead in the next chapter of their journey.
V. Conclusion
28. Allow me to conclude with a final note. The experience of the SCTs has shown that our justice system can be designed and operated in ways that enable it to deliver justice even in the smallest of claims, and that even procedures and innovations that may appear simple can have a tremendous impact on the administration of justice. This is no less true of the contributions of each and every person who has been part of the SCTs’ 40-year journey. It is the sum of all these efforts that have made possible the SCTs’ remarkable achievements over the course of the last four decades which we celebrate today, and which stand the SCTs in good stead for the future. We are all truly grateful to all those who have played a part in the conception, development and growth of the SCTs over the last 40 years. Let me close by expressing my deep gratitude to all of you for joining us today to mark this special occasion, as well as to the team from the Community Courts and Tribunals Cluster, led by Principal District Judge Thian Yee Sze, for the immense work that has gone into putting together this event and the commemorative publication that we are launching today.
29. Thank you very much, and I wish you a fulfilling Symposium.
*I am deeply grateful to my colleagues, Assistant Registrars Wee Yen Jean, Bryan Ching and Ong Kye Jing, for all their assistance in the research for and preparation of this address.
(1) See Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (24 August 1984) vol 44 (“1984 Parliamentary Debate”) at col 2000 (Prof S Jayakumar, Minister for Labour, Second Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs).
(2) See the 1984 Parliamentary Debate at col 2000 (Prof S Jayakumar).
(3) See Small Claims Tribunals in Singapore: Accessible, Affordable, Empowering (editor-in-chief: Thian Yee Sze; general editor Sandra Looi Ai Lin) (Academy Publishing, 2025) (“Commemorative Publication”) at paras 1.2–1.11.
(4) See the 1984 Parliamentary Debate at col 2001 (Prof S Jayakumar).
(5) See the 1984 Parliamentary Debate at cols 2002 and 2015 (Prof S Jayakumar) and the Commemorative Publication at p 135.
(6) See the Small Claims Tribunals Act (Cap 308, 1985 Rev Ed), s 5(2)(a).
(7) See the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 (2020 Rev Ed), ss 5(3)(a) and 5(4), read with the definitions of “prescribed limit” and “prescribed extended limit” in s 2.
(8) See Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (9 July 2018) vol 94 (“2018 Parliamentary Debate”) (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai, Senior Minister of State for Law).
(9) See the 2018 Parliamentary Debate (Ms Joan Pereira, Tanjong Pagar; and Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Bishan-Toa Payoh).
(10) See the Small Claims Tribunals Act (Cap 308, 1985 Rev Ed), s 5(1).
(11) See the 1984 Parliamentary Debate at cols 2002 and 2015 (Prof S Jayakumar).
(12) See the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 (2020 Rev Ed), s 5(1)(a), read with the list of specified claims in the Schedule.
(13) See Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (21 November 2005) vol 80 at col 1829 (Prof S Jayakumar, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law).
(14) See Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (25 May 1995) vol 64 at col 1136 (Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law).
(15) See the Commemorative Publication at paras 2.14 and 3.3.
(16) See the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 (2020 Rev Ed), s 22(1).
(17) See the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 (2020 Rev Ed), s 28.
(18) See the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 (2020 Rev Ed), s 12.
(19) See the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 (2020 Rev Ed), ss 23(1) and 23(3). See also the 1984 Parliamentary Debate at col 2002 (Prof S Jayakumar), where it was noted that “[t]he informality of the tribunal and its simplified procedure should enable any layman to present his own case”.
(20) See the 1984 Parliamentary Debate at col 2000 (Prof S Jayakumar). See also Sundaresh Menon CJ, “The Role of Tribunals in the Delivery of Justice: Charting a Course for the Future”, keynote address at the inaugural Tribunals Conference: Advancing Access to Justice Through a Quality Tribunals System (26 April 2022) (“Tribunals Conference Speech”) at para 14.
(21) See the Small Claims Tribunals Act 1984 (2020 Rev Ed) at ss 22(2)–22(5).
(22) See the Tribunals Conference Speech at para 16.
(23) See Sundaresh Menon CJ, opening address at the official opening of the State Courts Towers (14 July 2023) at para 2.
(24) See the Commemorative Publication at paras 2.25, 2.26(b) and 2.26(d).
(25) See the Commemorative Publication at para 2.26(a).
(26) See the Commemorative Publication at paras 2.52 and 2.53.
(27) See Justice Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah, “Technology as a Bridge to Justice”, speech at the Singapore Courts’ Conversations with the Community (30 May 2024) at para 32; and Sundaresh Menon CJ, “The Judiciary in a Changing World”, SingHealth Academic Hour – Distinguished Leaders Series 2025 (7 March 2025) (“SingHealth Academic Hour Speech”) at para 15.
(28) See the SingHealth Academic Hour Speech at para 16.
(29) 9,280 cases were filed in the SCTs in 2021; 9,113 cases were filed in the SCTs in 2022; and 10,288 cases were filed in the SCTs in 2023: see the Singapore Courts Annual Report 2022 at p 34, and the Singapore Courts Annual Report 2023 at p 33.
(30) In 2024, the annual caseload for the SCTs was 11,771, based on statistics from the Data Analytics and Research Department, State Courts: see the Commemorative Publication at para 6.1, footnote 1. This is a significant proportion of the State Courts’ overall civil caseload – in 2024, there were 14,032 originating claims and 384 originating applications filed in the State Courts’ civil courts, based on statistics from the Data Analytics and Research Department, State Courts: see the Commemorative Publication at para 3.19, footnote 52.
(31) See Sundaresh Menon CJ, “The Complexification of Disputes in the Digital Age”, Goff Lecture 2021 (9 November 2021).
(32) See the Commemorative Publication at paras 2.56–2.61 and 8.7–8.8.
(33) See the Commemorative Publication at paras 8.13–8.14 and 8.18.
(34) See Sundaresh Menon CJ, “Technology and the Changing Face of Justice”, keynote lecture at the Negotiation and Conflict Management Group Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference 2019 (14 November 2019) at paras 29–30 and 32–34.
(35) See Sundaresh Menon CJ, “Judicial Responsibility in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”, keynote speech at the inaugural Singapore-India Conference on Technology (13 April 2024) at para 13.
Topics:
Collaborations and MOUs
2025/04/16
Share this page:
