Resolving Neighbour Disputes through the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal, State Courts of Singapore

In a densely populated city-state like Singapore where more than 80 per cent of the population lives in high-rise apartments, friction between neighbours can sometimes occur. Coupled with living in a relatively fast-paced environment, residing in close proximity with our neighbours can heighten our sensitivity towards noises, smells and what we perceive to be inconsiderate use of common spaces like the common corridor. These tensions can easily sour relations between neighbours, particularly where both parties are unable or unwilling to talk through the issues and resolve them.

Such neighbour disputes may seem minor at first blush but in reality cause the disputants significant distress. The issues are deeply personal and frequently longstanding, and affect their day-to-day living and peace of mind. Neighbour disputes nearly always involve other members of the same household who start to rally around the main player, and may sometimes involve residents from neighbouring homes who take sides. Over time, the households become embroiled in a succession of tit-for-tat behaviour and a shroud of hatred, suspicion, paranoia and distrust descends over the neighbourhood, making returning to and remaining in one’s own home unimaginably tense and extremely unpleasant. These neighbour disputes can escalate very easily and quickly as both camps feed on the animosity that they have for each other but are notoriously difficult to deescalate and resolve without the timely and judicious involvement of a third-party peacemaker that the disputants sufficiently trust.

The Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 (“CDRA”) was passed on 13 March 2015 and came into operation on 1 October 2015. The CDRA created a new statutory tort of interfering with the enjoyment or use of places of residence. The underlying principle of the CDRA regime is that no person should cause unreasonable interference with his neighbour’s enjoyment or use of that neighbour’s place of residence, either by his wrongful act or omission.

While civil proceedings may still be brought in the Magistrate’s Court, District Court or High Court, where parties can be legally represented and the standard costs and rules of procedure apply, the CDRA also established the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (“CDRT”) as part of the State Courts, where proceedings are commenced through a straightforward Claim process, the rules of procedure are simplified, parties are self-represented and costs are significantly lower.

This article highlights how being a Tribunal has enabled the CDRT to provide affordable and efficient access to justice for the man in the street and to adopt a principled, nuanced, holistic and multi-disciplinary approach in managing cases, in order to assist parties to resolve their disputes thoroughly and effectively, thereby restoring peace between neighbours and strengthening the social fabric.

The CDRT is established as part of the State Courts under section 14 of the CDRA, with the Tribunal Judges in the CDRT appointed from among District Judges in the State Courts. The Judges have, between them, a wealth of experience dealing with criminal and civil cases, as well as arbitration and mediation experience. As importantly, each Judge who is appointed to the CDRT has a passion for community law, and possesses the personal attributes to be an effective peacemaker.

The CDRT is supported by a Registry of Court Administrators who between them are able to communicate to court users in the four official languages of English, Mandarin, Bahasa Melayu and Tamil. The Court Administrators comprise Registry Managers, Case Managers, Pre-Filing Consultants cum Interpreters, Counter Officers and Registry Officers, and are supported by an in-house team of two Psychologists, a Counsellor and a Social Worker.

What the CDRT has done is to distil the civil process to its basic elements. Legal proceedings are started in the CDRT when a plaintiff files a Claim against a respondent. Instead of the usual mode of commencing tortious proceedings in the civil courts through filing a Writ of Summons and a Statement of Claim, the CDRT uses a unique originating process called a Claim, which is a simplified all-in-one form in plain English that combines a statement of the remedies that the plaintiff seeks, and a narrative of the facts and evidence that support his Claim. Similarly, instead of filing a Memorandum of Appearance and a Defence to the Statement of Claim as is the case in tortious proceedings in the civil courts, the respondent who wishes to contest the plaintiff’s Claim will file a single simplified form called a Reply, in which he states his position as well as a narrative of the facts and evidence that support his case. In simplifying and shortening the proceedings, the CDRT process has also explicitly excluded interlocutory applications such as summary judgment and disposal of case on point of law, discovery and inspection of documents, and interrogatories.¹

Unlike the civil courts where litigants are at liberty to instruct advocates and solicitors to represent them in the proceedings, the default position in the CDRT is that all litigants are required to conduct their own cases throughout the proceedings, in order to keep costs low.² A party to the proceedings may be represented by an advocate and solicitor only where all parties to the proceedings agree to that litigant being represented and the CDRT grants leave.³ The CDRA, however, provides for a litigant to be represented by another person if the litigant is unable to represent himself in the proceedings because of youth, inability to remain in Singapore until the hearing of the case, old age, illiteracy or infirmity of mind or body.⁴

Consistent with keeping costs low for both parties, the CDRT employs fixed filing fees for the filing of the Claim, the Reply and all other ancillary applications.⁵ A Plaintiff who wishes to file a Claim against his neighbour will pay a flat fee of SGD150 which, unless he takes out other ancillary applications, will cover him all the way to the first day of trial. In the event that an order is made in the Plaintiff’s favour, he pays an additional SGD30 to extract the order. The Respondent who wishes to contest the Claim will pay a flat fee of SGD20 to file his Reply. In addition, the CDRA explicitly provides that costs, other than disbursements, must not be granted to or awarded against any party to the proceedings in the CDRT except where:

The CDRT has been very intentional in putting in place a slew of safeguards to facilitate a litigant-in-person’s access to justice. As highlighted above, all forms that are used in the CDRT are simplified and are written in plain English, without the use of any legal terms, in order for the man in the street with a reasonable command of English to be able to understand their contents and what he is required to do. Each form is accompanied by an Explanatory Note to its user and to the person on whom it is served, in order for both parties to understand which part of the proceeding they are at, the steps that are required of them, and the filing fees that they are required to pay.

To ensure that the CDRT remains responsive to public feedback on the forms and is in a position to continually evaluate the effectiveness of the forms and make improvements to them, the forms are contained in the State Courts Practice Directions instead of the subsidiary legislation to the CDRA.⁷ In this way, the CDRT can amend the forms, remove unnecessary forms or introduce new forms through the State Courts internal approval process for issuing the Practice Directions, without having to table amendments to the subsidiary legislation.

When a litigant approaches the CDRT Registry to make enquiries, Counter Officers will provide the litigant with a basic level of information, such as an overview of the entire Claim process, the estimated costs, the evidential requirements, how the litigant can access the CDRT website to obtain more information and where he can find lawyers to obtain basic legal advice if he wishes to do so. The Counter Officers use brochures, charts and visual aids to ensure that their explanations are clear, systematic and consistent, and to assist the litigant in understanding what is being explained more easily. If the litigant wishes to have a more in-depth discussion or if he wishes to proceed with filing a Claim, the Counter Officers will arrange for a Pre-Filing Consultant to speak with the litigant in the privacy of an interview room.

For litigants who attend personally at the CDRT to make enquiries on starting a Claim, the CDRT has in place a triage system facilitated by the Counter Officers and Pre-Filing Consultants to assist litigants in exploring self-help and non-litigious options of resolving their neighbour disputes and in making an informed decision on whether they wish to bring a Claim against their neighbour.

During pre-filing consultation, the Pre-Filing Consultant will ascertain the facts and background of the case and the litigant’s main objectives in seeking to commence legal proceedings against the respondent. Within the context of the litigant’s objectives and the supporting evidence that the litigant possesses (or does not possess), the Consultant will explain the Claim process, the estimated costs and the evidential requirements that the litigant is expected to meet as the plaintiff, and conduct a basic form of reality testing with the litigant. The Consultant will also explore with the litigant various options that may be available to him to address the dispute, including self-help and other non-litigious options, such as speaking to the respondent to try to resolve the dispute, monitoring the situation for a period of time before deciding whether to take action, seeking assistance from the relevant regulatory or enforcement agency, and bringing the dispute to the Community Mediation Centre for voluntary mediation. During his interaction with the litigant, the Consultant will use the opportunity to look out for signs of emotional, psychological or psychiatric issues. Where the Consultant suspects that there may be such issues, he will request the in-house Psychologists, Counsellor or Social Worker to provide on-site psychological support to the litigant, make a preliminary assessment of the litigant’s issues (if any) and explore whether the litigant should be referred to a counsellor or psychiatrist for therapeutic follow-up.

If, after the pre-filing consultation, the litigant decides to commence a CDRA Claim in the CDRT, the litigant will prepare the Claim on-site by using the computer terminals that are provided at the CDRT Registry or off-site by downloading the relevant form from the CDRT website. The litigant will thereafter file the Claim at the Registry upon payment of the standard fee of SGD150.

Having observed that some litigants may not be competent in using the computer to prepare the Claim or Reply or may not be able to express their thoughts in written English in a way that is understandable, logical, systematic and comprehensive, the CDRT has collaborated with the National University of Singapore’s Faculty of Law and the Singapore Management University’s School of Law to implement the University Student Representatives Programme, where small groups of law undergraduates (called “Student Representatives”) are stationed at the CDRT on a pro bono basis to do the following:

2. provide basic assistance in guiding litigants through the court process where necessary, for example, advice on appropriate forms to use, expected timelines, basic evidentiary requirements such as the need to have documents translated into English and for video or audio recordings to be transcribed, and what to expect in court hearings.

During the programme, the relevant university will provide continual academic supervision and guidance for the Student Representatives. On procedural matters, the Student Representatives will have the opportunity to consult with Judges as well as experienced Court Administrators. At the end of the programme, the Student Representatives who have successfully fulfilled at least 20 hours of service will receive a certificate of completion from the State Courts.

Unlike the civil courts, the CDRT is not bound by the rules of evidence⁸ and takes a judge-led approach in managing cases. The CDRT may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit,⁹ enquire into any matter which it may consider relevant to the proceedings whether or not such matter has been raised by a party,¹⁰ and order a person to be called as a witness and to file a written report.¹¹ The CDRT may give such directions for the proceedings as it thinks fit, conduct the proceedings in such manner as it thinks fit and where any party does not appear at a hearing, proceed with the hearing and make such orders as it thinks fit.¹² All matters and proceedings in the CDRT are generally heard in camera, though the CDRT has the power to hear any matter or part of a matter in an open and public manner to which the public generally may have access if the CDRT is satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice, or for any other sufficient reason to do so.¹³

Since the litigants in CDRT proceedings live in close proximity to each other and are likely to know each other, the CDRT employs simplified modes of service which litigants-in-person can easily comply with. In addition to personal service, litigants can serve CDRT documents by leaving them at the opposing party’s residential address, by posting them to the opposing party’s residential address, in any manner as agreed between the parties or in a manner that is directed by the CDRT.¹⁴

Many cases of neighbour disputes arise out of an unresolved unhappy incident which took place months or years ago between the plaintiff’s household and the respondent’s household and which has since spiraled out of control and manifested itself in a tit-for-tat behaviour that is aimed at frustrating, antagonising or provoking each other. In such cases, counselling and mediation sessions during which parties are encouraged to revisit the likely underlying cause of the current dispute, explain the impact of the other party’s actions on them and their household, and apologise if necessary have helped parties to ventilate, find closure and work towards a resolution or a compromise. Experience has shown that once the underlying emotional issues are addressed and resolved, parties are more willing to engage and negotiate with each other.

In this regard, at any point during the proceedings, the CDRT can order parties to the proceedings to attend counselling by an in-house court counsellor or external counsellor, or mediation at the Community Mediation Centre, at the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution or before any other mediator.¹⁵ While counselling sessions and mediation sessions have historically been conducted separately from each other, the CDRT and the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution will, in appropriate cases, use counselling-infused mediation sessions, where a court counsellor is present with the mediator-judge during the mediation session and assists the mediator-judge to surface, identify, address and resolve any deep-seated emotional issues between the parties.

Due to the nature of neighbour disputes where the parties have to return to their homes and continue living in close proximity with each other once they leave the CDRT, solely adjudicating a case based on the evidence and issuing an order for damages, an injunction or an order for specific performance after a trial will deal with only the issue at hand but is not likely to assist both parties in improving their relationship as neighbours. Apart from helping parties to surface, identify and resolve any deep-seated issues that may underlie the dispute, the mediation and counselling process also teaches parties to start communicating with each other, and to do so in a way that is less acrimonious, with the hope that over time, they will re-learn how to engage each other privately outside the judicial system to resolve any future issues, disagreements or disputes.

The involvement of a trained counsellor either in a standalone counselling session or a mediation session is especially helpful to the dispute resolution process where the dispute is caused by the respondent’s personality disorder or psychiatric illness, which hitherto may or may not have been diagnosed and treated.

For undiagnosed cases, the in-house psychologists and counsellor will conduct a preliminary assessment of the litigant to identify the suspected personality disorder or psychiatric illness, provide inputs to the Judge on whether the litigant would benefit from a referral to counselling agencies within the community for therapeutic counselling and/or a referral to the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”) for medical examination and treatment, and facilitate the referral.

For diagnosed cases, the in-house psychologists and counsellor will assist the Judge in encouraging the litigant and/or his family members to work out a treatment plan with his treating psychiatrist, psychologist and counsellor, and to monitor the litigant’s compliance with the treatment plan. Where necessary, the in-house psychologists and counsellor will refer the litigant or his family members to a counselling agency within the community to provide counselling support and home visits.

When a case before the CDRT cannot be resolved at the pre-trial stage, and parties proceed to a full trial, the CDRT arranges for the in-house counsellors to counsel parties after the verdict is delivered, in order to assist parties to find closure after investing much time and energy throughout the proceedings, and to explore practical steps that they can each take to make their existence as neighbours less acrimonious and hopefully more pleasant.

Consistent with keeping all CDRT proceedings affordable and to encourage parties to resolve their dispute through mediation, all CDRT-ordered mediation sessions at the State Courts Centre for Dispute Resolution and the Community Mediation Centre are conducted free of charge. As for counselling sessions, all counselling sessions that are conducted by the in-house Psychologists, Counsellor and Social Worker are free of charge while fees for therapeutic counselling sessions that are conducted by the counselling agencies within the community are charged based on the litigant’s financial ability which is ascertained through means testing. This concept of co-payment for therapeutic counselling, which may be as little as SGD5 per session, is an important tool in securing the litigant’s commitment to the counselling process, which may be a one-off session or may involve repeated sessions over a few months, depending on the litigant’s needs and progress.

The CDRT has established working relationships with various counselling agencies within the community that offer therapeutic counselling services in a variety of sub-specialties, including counselling for behavioural issues, counselling for persons with personality disorders or psychiatric illnesses, counselling for various addictions, counselling for the aged sick, counselling for caregivers, marriage and relationship counselling, and counselling for financial or social assistance.

Notwithstanding that the CDRT is the latest addition to Singapore’s judicial landscape, many new frontiers have been forged through the policies and legislation that establish and govern it, the principles that guide it, and the case management strategies that it uses to deliver justice to the community effectively, efficiently and affordably. Public trust and confidence in the justice system will continue to grow through the work of the CDRT as we continually listen, observe, reflect, innovate and envision towards a justice system that serves the community and is relevant to its evolving needs.

► Samuel Chua Hwa Kuan

District Judge

State Courts

Samuel is a District Judge in the State Courts Community Justice and Tribunals Division. He concurrently sits as a Tribunal Judge in the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal and oversees the administrative aspects of the Tribunal. He is grateful to his colleagues from the State Courts Community Justice and Tribunals Division for the inputs that they have provided.