In Singapore, litigation proceedings are typically commenced by way of an originating process either an Originating Claim or Originating Application), which is followed by the defendant’s response (who normally enters an appearance if there is an intention to dispute the claim). This is followed by pleadings, discovery of documents, directions by the court, interlocutory applications for interim or final relief and, if the case has not been resolved by settlement (normally through negotiation or mediation) or terminated by summary or other form of interlocutory judgment, the action will be set down for trial.
All originating processes must be served personally [Rules of Court 2021 (the Rules of Court), O 6 r 5 (Originating Claim) and O 6 r 12 (Originating Application)]. Service out of the jurisdiction of any originating process is generally permissible with the court’s permission [O 8 r 11].
The general rule is that documents need not be served personally unless the Rules of Court or a court order expressly requires otherwise [O 7 r 1(1)]. Even if the Rules of Court require, the court has the power to dispense with the requirement of personal service [O 7 r 7].
For more information, see:
The Rules of Court provide for several ways to enforce a judgment:
- Seizure and sale of property
- Delivery or possession of property
- Attachment of a debt
A judgment creditor obtaining a judgment in a court of law outside of Singapore (foreign jurisdiction) specified in the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959, must register the foreign judgment in the General Division of the High Court before it can be enforced.
The foreign judgment can be enforced by filing an originating application without notice (OA) prepared in accordance with the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021.
The OA must be supported by an affidavit. For more information, click here.
In Singapore, Article 93 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed) (“the Constitution”) provides that “The judicial power of Singapore shall be vested in a Supreme Court and in such subordinate courts as may be provided by any written law for the time being in force.” This refers to the power to pronounce on the constitutionality of a piece of legislation. While the Constitution vests the judicial power in the judiciary, it does not expressly provide for judicial review powers.
Nevertheless, it is trite in Singapore that the courts possess judicial review powers over administrative decisions as well as decisions taken by other branches of government. This was elegantly expressed close to three decades ago in Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525 at [86]: “All power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power”. Generally, the ambit of judicial review is based on the three separate grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
The general rationale for judicial review is to:
(a) ensure the will of Parliament;
(b) serve as checks and balances based on the separation of powers; and
(c) fulfill the role of the judiciary as guardians of responsible administration.