Abusive and time-wasting applications to be deemed contempt of court

Those who abuse court processes by filing groundless applications and time-wasting claims may soon find themselves in jail and fined.

Such abuses, known as ‘lawfare’, include commencing civil proceedings seeking financial damages, despite knowing the claim is baseless, just to oppress the defendant.

The abuses include filing fictitious claims to delay criminal proceedings and persistently making groundless applications.

The phenomenon has been observed both in Singapore and overseas recently, said Minister of State for Law Mr Murali Pillai, on Nov 13, during the second reading of the Administration of Justice (Protection) (Amendment) Bill in Parliament.

Mr Murali said it was necessary to make it clear that such an abuse of court processes would amount to contempt of court.

He said: “The impact of egregious abuse of our court system can be serious, very serious... if we do not act, over time, trust in Singapore’s justice system will be eroded.

“We also have a duty to ensure that our processes are not weaponised or abused.”

When the Bill was introduced in Parliament on Oct 14, the Ministry of Law had said the abuse of court processes was more common here, with parties filing unmeritorious claims to oppress others, or for ulterior purposes.

Mr Murali said overseas, lawfare has taken various forms.

These include the misuse of court proceedings by individuals against their intimate partners, to control, harass or intimidate them long after the relationship has ended.

He said: “Having observed these trends, we have decided that it is time to proactively act to safeguard the administration of justice in Singapore.

“It is the Government’s responsibility to act to protect the judicial system, especially when we have repeated pronouncements from our courts on the abuse of their processes.”

He added the amendments were to clarify the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, and do not lower the current threshold for contempt of court.

But it does add a new clause where those who abet or cause others to engage in such conduct can also be held liable.

In 2023, a man sued a woman who did not want to be in a relationship with him.

He claimed $3 million for alleged trauma and damage to his reputation, and another claim of $22,000 for allegedly breaching an agreement to improve their relationship.

Unable to accept that the woman did not want to be in a relationship with him, he had his second suit struck out by the court, which said the claim was manifestly groundless and without foundation.

Mr Murali said litigants and lawyers who act with reasonable care and in good faith should not be penalised.

He gave the example of an accused person who approaches a lawyer shortly before he is to start serving his sentence following a failed appeal.

The accused presents new evidence to the lawyer who does not know whether it is genuine or not.

The lawyer then makes an urgent court application so the accused person does not have to start serving his sentence immediately.

But after investigation, the lawyer finds that the supposed new evidence is not genuine, and so he withdraws the application.

Mr Murali said the lawyer in such a case would not be caught under the amendments, if he acted in good faith and had taken reasonable steps.

Four MPs had sought clarifications regarding the Bill.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang GRC) and Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang) asked whether the amendments would have a chilling effect on lawyers.

In response, Mr Murali said the standards for lawyers are not being changed, and that lawyers are already held to high professional standards, stressing again that those who act with reasonable care have nothing to fear.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) asked how the deterrent effect would work, especially in cases like that of Mohammad Farid Batra, who is serving a life sentence for drugs offences, and would see no downside in making multiple court applications.

Mr Murali accepted that in such cases, the deterrent effect would indeed be limited. But he also noted it was important to deter third parties who advise, assist or egg on such conduct.

Those who commit contempt of court during proceedings in the State Courts or other courts can be fined up to $20,000 or jailed for up to a year.

If it takes place in the High Court or the Court of Appeal, the individual can be fined up to $100,000 and jailed for up to three years.