Lock Han Chng Jonathan (Jonathan Luo Hancheng) v Goh Jessiline

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 27 April 2007
• Date: 27 April 2007
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Court Suit No 21830 of 2005 (Registrar's Appeal from the Subordinate
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Lock Han Chng Jonathan (Jonathan Luo Hancheng)

Plaintiff

and

Goh Jessiline

Defendant

[2007] SGHC 58

Lai Siu Chiu J

Magistrate's Court Suit No 21830 of 2005 (Registrar's Appeal from the Subordinate Courts No 17 of 2007)

High Court

Courts and Jurisdiction–Judges–Power–Whether settlement judge at court dispute resolution conference having jurisdiction and power to issue order of court

The plaintiff made a claim for damages against the defendant arising out of a collision between the plaintiff's motorcycle and the defendant's motor car. The parties attended a court dispute resolution (“CDR”) session at the Subordinate Courts and reached a settlement at the close of the session. The terms of the settlement were recorded by the district judge who was presiding as the mediator in the CDR conference (“the Settlement Judge”). Later that same day (31 March 2006), the plaintiff's solicitor faxed to the defendant's solicitors a list of disbursements with a proviso that unless the latter reverted by 7 April 2006, the plaintiff's solicitor would proceed to extract the order made by the Settlement Judge.

The defendant's solicitor did not approve the plaintiff's solicitors' draft order of court. In their letter to the plaintiff's solicitor dated 7 April 2006, they pointed out that they were unable to approve the draft order of court as the plaintiff's figures for the amount of disbursements kept changing. As there was a recorded settlement, the defendant's solicitors also felt that an order of court was unnecessary given that the only outstanding issue related to costs.

Notwithstanding the letter from the defendant's solicitors of 7 April 2006, the plaintiff's solicitor wrote to the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts on 13 April 2006, stating two clear days had lapsed since he had forwarded the draft order of court to the defendant's solicitors and the defendant's solicitors had not replied. Accordingly, he was allowed to extract the order of court which he did on 17 April 2006. After extracting the order (which stated the terms recorded by the Settlement Judge as a judgment), the plaintiff's solicitor issued a writ of seizure and sale against the defendant on 2 May 2006. Faced with the execution proceedings, the defendant's solicitors paid, first, on 16 May 2006 the sum under the order of court followed by the costs of execution on 22 May 2006. They then filed an application for the writ of seizure and sale to be set aside or declared null and void, and another application to amend the first by adding a prayer to set aside the order of court itself. Both applications were dismissed by the deputy registrar of the Subordinate Courts. The defendant's appeal against that dismissal to a district judge in chambers was similarly dismissed.

After obtaining leave from the High Court to appeal against the decision of the district judge, the defendant filed the present appeal against the dismissal of the two applications. The defendant submitted,inter alia, that the Settlement Judge had no jurisdiction and power to issue an order of court, since the CDR conference was not a court proceeding and the e@dr Centre, under which CDR conferences take place, was not a court vested with judicial authority.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) The list of Subordinate Courts that were conferred jurisdiction was contained in s 3 of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed) (“SCA”) and was exhaustive. Since there was no other written law conferring jurisdiction on any other Subordinate Courts, by virtue of Art 93 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint), only the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts as listed in s 3 of the SCA had judicial powers. Judicial power was vested in courts and jurisdiction was conferred on courts, as opposed to judges. Consequently, it was clear that the powers of a district judge were in connection with the court he purported to sit in. For a district judge sitting as a settlement judge in a CDR conference to have judicial powers, it had to first be established that CDR conferences were held as court proceedings in “courts” endowed with such powers: at [11], [12], [14] and [15].

(2) The e@dr Centre, despite being an entity under the umbrella of the Subordinate Courts, was not a “court” for the purposes of the vesting of judicial powers under the SCA. Instead, it was simply a centre administered by the Subordinate Courts. Construed as such, it appeared that the e@dr Centre did not possess the necessary jurisdiction for the mediation sessions that were conducted under its purview to be deemed “court proceedings” and for the district judges who sat as settlement judges in those mediation sessions to be endowed with judicial powers to make orders of court: at [19].

(3)“Chambers” in the context of CDR sessions referred to settlement chambers within the e@dr Centre. Settlement chambers therefore were not chambers within the meaning of s 32 of the SCA and a district judge mediating a dispute within the settlement chambers was not clothed with judicial powers by virtue of s 32: at [24].

(4) Mediation in the Family Court cases was also contained under the umbrella of the e@dr Centre. In cases of ancillary matters, orders might be made by a deputy registrar of the Family Court sitting in a pre-trial conference for parties to attend counselling or a resolution conference. A resolution conference was a mediation session conducted by a judge, and was the Family Court equivalent of a CDR conference. However, the judge mediator in a Family Court resolution conference did not make any orders during the conference; instead, a consent order was drafted, and there would be a consent ancillary matters hearing fixed for the draft consent order to be crystallised into a consent judgment. Similarly, in matters pertaining to children's issues, if an amicable resolution of the dispute was reached after a resolution conference, where a Family Court judge sat as mediator, there would be a consent originating summons hearing before a district judge in chambers. It was therefore apparent that the Family Court judge sitting as mediator in a resolution conference did not make any orders during the conference. It followed that CDR conferences outside the Family Court should be conducted in the same manner. The Settlement Judge should not and did not have the jurisdiction and power to issue orders of court and consent judgments at the CDR conference. There must be an additional step taken - that of crystallising the recorded terms of settlement into a consent judgment by having a further hearing before a proper court. Only then could execution proceedings follow: at [34] to [37].

PP v Nyu Tiong Lam [1995] 3 SLR (R) 788; [1996] 1 SLR 273 (refd)

Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed,1999 Reprint)Art 93

Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002Rev Ed)s 2

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)O 34A, O 34Ar 2, O 34Ar 2 (2), O 34Ar 2 (3), O 34Ar 2 (6)

Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999Rev Ed)ss 3, 32,Pt IV

Andrew Hanam (Andrew & Co) for the plaintiff

Madan Assomull, Andrew Goh and Vivian Chew (Assomull & Partners) for the defendant.

Judgment reserved.

Lai Siu Chiu J

The background

1 The plaintiff, Jonathan Lock, made a claim for damages against the defendant, Jessiline Goh, arising out of a collision between the plaintiff's motorcycle and the defendant's motor car. The parties attended a court dispute resolution (“CDR”) session at the Subordinate Courts and reached a settlement at the close of the session. The terms of the settlement were that the defendant would pay the plaintiff damages of $187.50 with costs fixed at $1,000 plus reasonable disbursements with a notice of discontinuance to be filed in eight weeks. The terms of the settlement were recorded by the district judge who was presiding as the mediator in the CDR conference (“the Settlement Judge”). That district judge has since retired.

2 Later that same day (31 March 2006), the plaintiff's solicitor faxed to the defendant's solicitors a list of disbursements totalling $290.35 with a proviso that unless the latter reverted by 7 April 2006, the plaintiff's...