PIPD Legal Process PDF

00:01 Hello. In part one of this video presentation, we talk about the law involved for PIPD work. We have also talked about some useful references. In part two, we talk about what a person should do at the scene of the accident and what you should do when the client comes to you at your office. In...

00:01 Hello. In part one of this video presentation, we talk about the law involved for PIPD work. We have also talked about some useful references. In part two, we talk about what a person should do at the scene of the accident and what you should do when the client comes to you at your office. In this part three of the presentation, we\'ll be talking about the court process. 00:30 I will be talking about the pre-action protocol and things that we need to do before we commence an action in court. So let\'s get into this pre-action protocol. 00:44 The legal process in a PIPD works starts when a person decides to sue the other party in court. Now before a person sues the other person, he is required to comply with the pre-action protocol if he wants to commence his actions in the state court. In the high court, there is no equivalent pre-action protocol. 01:13 However, as I remember when I first started practicing this area of work, there is already an industrial practice for legal practitioner in PIPD work to send a letter of demand before they sue. The letter of demand is usually sent to the motor insurers of the other party or the potential defendant. And this legal demand is part and parcel. 01:41 of the pre-action protocol. I will be sharing with you further details in the rest of this video. So let\'s get into this to have a better understanding of what this pre-action protocol is all about. 01:58 Before you sue on behalf of your client who is a claimant, you first need to understand and know the nature of the claim. As the word PIPD suggests, a PIPD claim generally has two broad categories. It can be a claim for bodily injury or personal injury, and this is normally called PI claim. Or it could be a claim for property damage. 02:28 and this is normally known as non-injury moto accident claim or in short we call it NIVA or sometimes it could be both. So you need to understand the nature of the claim because the pre-action protocol will have a great bearing on the types of claim that you are going to file on behalf of your client. 02:56 is a protocol where a claimant must comply before he files the action in court. The pre-action protocol for PIPD work only exists for a state court matter. We do not have, as I have mentioned earlier, an equivalent in the High Court. So obviously, the pre-action protocol can be found in the State Court practice direction, and currently, 03:24 State Court practice direction is the 2021 edition. However, the earlier version, which is the 2014 edition, also has similar pre-action protocols. Now, there are two protocols that you need to know if you want to do PIPD work. The first is of course Appendix B. 03:50 which is known as the pre-action protocol for personal injury claims and non-injury moto claims. The second is Appendix D, which is the benchmark rates for costs of rental and loss of use. Appendix D is a pre-action protocol that is relevant for what we call a NEMA claim, and it contains a table of benchmark rates that 04:20 the court will refer to in assessing a suitable multiplier for a claim for loss of use when the vehicle is being repaired or when the vehicle cannot be used again. So you need to go to the State Court Practice Direction and be familiar with these two appendixes. 04:46 Now let\'s talk a little bit more about the Pre-Action Protocol for PIPD Matter. First, we look at the Object. The object of the protocol is to streamline the management of personal injury claims and non-injury moto accident claims. Now, it is aimed to promote early settlement of such claims. This is a very important object of the Pre-Action Protocol. 05:15 Basically, what it seeks to do is to place an obligation on the part of the claimant to send a letter of claim with sufficient information to allow the other party, which is the potential defendant or the insurer concerned, to be able to consider the claim and make an offer to settle the case before 05:44 it goes to the next stage which is an action in court. So when you are drafting a letter of claim, please spare this object in mind and ask yourself this basic question. Have I given sufficient particulars, information or documents to allow the other party to make a serious and genuine offer? 06:07 Now, let\'s also go into its applicability. According to the protocol, it applies to all personal injury claims, including claims arising from motor accidents, bodily claims arising from industrial accidents, claims arising from negligence other than arising from a motor accident, and claims that results in fatal accidents. 06:40 Now, obviously, it only applies to claims that will eventually end up in a court action in either the state magistrate court or the district court. As stated earlier, this protocol doesn\'t apply to a claim for medical negligence because it has its own protocol. 07:05 Now, the Notice of Accident and the Pre-Accident Survey for NIMA claim is another important feature of the Pre-Action Protocol. Obviously, this applies to a Property Damage Claim. Now, what this part of the protocol set out to do is to have the claimant issue a notice 07:31 to the defendant or rather the potential defendant and his insurance company before he commends a repair to the motor vehicle in question. The purpose is to allow parties to come to an agreement of a common surveyor known as single-join expert to conduct what we call a pre-repair survey. The purpose of the pre-repair survey is to 08:00 is to ensure that the damage on the vehicle is consistent with the accident and that the repairs are limited to this damage part as observed by the surveyor. This part of the pre-action protocol came into force as far back or as early as 2014 08:30 It actually historically came about from a proposal by a motor task force that were convened when motor premiums in Singapore was increasing at a rate that is of great concern. And one of the reasons that was cited for such an increase in premiums 08:59 was due to exaggerated claims and even fraudulent claims. So one of the primary objectives of this pre-repair survey is to ensure that there are no additional items of repairs that surface during repairs. So this is one of the important parts of the pre-action protocol for NEMA claims that you should look into and make sure that it is observed. 09:29 this presupposes that you are in a position to advise your client at that stage. 09:38 The next thing that you need to understand and be familiar with is the requirement for a letter of claim. As I\'ve shared earlier, there\'s already an industrial practice to issue a legal demand even before the pre-action protocol was introduced into our court system. So it\'s not something new. However, what this pre-action protocol does is to make provision 10:06 as to what are the things that you should include in such a letter of claim. So let me give you some example. 10:15 The Pre-Action Protocol states that the Letter of Claim must be sent to both the Defendant and his insurers. If there are more than one potential Defendant, it must be sent to every potential Defendant and every Moto Insurer. The Pre-Action Protocol also provides that the Letter of Claim must set out certain 10:45 particulars or details of the claim. Now this particulars or details would include a brief statement of all the relevant and available facts on which the claim is based. It should also contain a brief description of the nature of the property damage or the injuries suffered. It should also contain an estimate of the general damages and a quantification of the special damages. 11:14 with breakdown for each heads of claim. Where there are witnesses, their name should be disclosed as far as possible. Now, if there are government officers, whether it is from the police or from the Ministry of Manpower for an industrial accident, that are involved in the case, if possible provide their case reference number. 11:41 the identity or contact of the particular officer in charge of the investigation. Now, if there\'s any prosecution or court proceedings arising from the accident or where the claimant has passed away, any state coroner\'s findings, if available, should be disclosed. Now, in respect of quantum, that must be stated in the letter of claim. 12:11 especially when the quantum is likely to fall within the jurisdiction of the magistrate court that is before any apportionment of liability, then the claimant needs to set out nominees or names for expert, especially for medical experts, so that parties can also agree on an SJE for the PI portion. 12:41 Now, other than certain particulars, the Pre-Action Protocol has also stipulated certain type of documents that should be provided in that letter of claim. The first set of documents that you must provide in a letter of claim would be the relevant Singapore Accident Statements and Police Reports, Police Catch Plan if there is any, if not then the Claimant Catch of the Accident. 13:11 outcome of any police investigation or prosecution of any traffic offence, photographs of the damaged vehicle or even the accident scene, and sometimes police vehicle damage reports or photographs taken by the police, especially when you have a fatal accident at the 13:41 should provide any of course a video recording or video footage of the accident, any accident reconstruction report, ministry of manpower investigation reports, notice of assessment from the ministry of manpower if any, needless to say medical reports, medical certificates, medical receipts for or bills for medical treatment and evidence of payment. 14:10 income tax notices of assessment or other evidence on income and the loss of income, and any other supporting documents for any other claims that you may want to make on behalf of your client. Now for a NIMA claim, obviously the necessary documents that ought to accompany your letter of demand would include the repairs bill, and evidence of payment, the vehicle 14:39 LTA search to show that your client is the registered owner at the relevant time. If you have a claim for an insurance excess which the client has to pay, then the excess bill or its receipt should be produced. Where necessary, COE or PARF certificate should be produced. Then if the client has rented a substitute 15:07 while the vehicle was under repair or out of action, then any rental agreement, invoice or receipt for rental of replacement vehicles should be provided. And of course, in that letter of claim, you should produce or enclose the correspondence with the insurers relating to the pre-repair survey and even post-repair survey if any. 15:34 So these are some of the documents that you are required to provide under the pre-action protocol. 15:46 Now after a letter of demand has been sent to the potential defendant and the insurers of the potential defendant, the defendants or the insurers will have a certain timeframe to respond. Now the defendant or the insurer may just send an acknowledgement of the letter of claim without any substantial reply to the letter of claim. 16:13 and they are given a certain timeframe to make a substantial reply to the claim. Of course, if they are in a position to acknowledge and give a substantive reply, they can do so. So, there is a period that is provided under the pre-action protocol for the defendants to reply. If there\'s no reply, then the claimant is entitled to bring the matter to the next stage. 16:44 Now, as I\'ve stated, there\'s a certain period which you can look out by reading the necessary Appendix B. Now, once that period is over or has expired, then the claimant is required to give a notice of an intentioned commencement proceedings, and that notice will give the potential defendant or the insurer\'s 10-day notice to make\... 17:13 perhaps a last-minute offer or reply, filling which the claimant is entitled to commence legal proceedings. One of the important features about this time frame and this various component is that any non-compliance of the pre-action protocol can result in cost sanction against the defaulting party. 17:41 Now in certain instances, for example in the area of choosing or agreeing to a single-join expert, any default by one party could result in a preference for the complying party\'s choice to be chosen or preferred. I will share a bit more details on this in my subsequent slides. 18:11 So this is a rough overview of the pre-action protocol. Of course, when you are working in a law firm that requires you to practice this area of the law, usually that law firm will have a certain template. And you can follow these templates. However, it is advisable that you familiarize yourself with the pre-action protocol in Appendix B. 18:40 of the state core practice direction and ensure that whatever template they are using is in compliance with the pre-action protocol. 18:50 So let\'s now move on to the next area. 18:55 One important aspect of the pre-action protocol in Appendix B of the Stakehold Practice Direction is the provision of the lodgement of claims, NEMA claims to be exact, that is below 3000 with feedback. Now this 3000 benchmark 19:18 is before apportionment of liability, it excludes survey fees, interest costs and disbursements. So we have to ask, what is FIDRAC? FIDRAC stands for the Financial Industry Dispute Resolution Centre. It was established in August 2005 and it subsumed the work carried out by the Consumer 19:46 of the Associations of Banks in Singapore and the Insurance Dispute Resolution Organisation IDRO. So Feeddrag became a one-stop centre for resolution of all consumer retail disputes with the financial institutions in Singapore. Under the Monetary Authority of Singapore Dispute Resolution Scheme Regulation 2007, 20:15 The financial institutions that must subscribe to FDRAC will include banks, finance company, insurers, which of course includes moto insurers, capital market service licensees, licensed financial advisors and insurance broker. So FDRAC seek 20:36 provide an affordable alternative dispute resolution scheme that is independent and impartial. And they seek to encourage and assist in the resolution of such disputes in an amicable and fair manner. Their services is, however, available only to consumers who are individuals or sole proprietors. 21:05 And the most important part about Fiedrek\'s schemes is that all parties must represent themselves, and they are not allowed to engage external lawyers to represent them at Fiedrek. Of course, this does not prevent the claimants or the insurance company from seeking legal advice about their matter. The only difference is that the lawyers cannot argue the case for them. 21:36 Now, under the FIDRAC Non-Injury Moto Accident Scheme, or we call it the FIDRAC NEMA Scheme, it consists of two stages. The first stage is mediation, and it is first conducted to encourage the distributing parties to resolve the matter amicably. So mediation discussion may take place with both parties either jointly 22:05 or separately or both. Depending on the complexity of the disputes and the communication preferences of the parties, the discussion may be made through telephone, through emails, through video conferencing or through face-to-face meetings. Mediation is free for the claimant, but the insurers or the financial institution must pay \$50. This excludes. 22:35 The FEDRAC case managers are able to conduct the mediation in English and Mandarin. If no resolution can be reached at mediation, the second option is abjudication, and this will be offered to the consumer. And should the consumer decide to proceed with the abjudication process, FEDRAC will then appoint a neutral and 23:04 independent abjuricator from its panel. And this process usually involve both parties having to prepare written submissions for the abjuricator and then there is an abjurication hearing where both parties will present their case and have a chance to ask question of each other. So for the NEMA scheme 23:34 The abjudication fee is \$250, of course it excludes GST for the claimant, and \$500 for the insurance company. Now a sum of \$200 may be refunded to either parties after the case is abjudicated, and this will be determined by the abjudicator based on fee-drax prevailing refund rules. 24:04 So another important part of the fee-dragged abjurication process is that the abjuricator\'s decision is only binding on the financial institution and not on the claimant. So a claimant, if he\'s unhappy with the decision of the abjuricator, he is then free to bring his case to the court. 24:35 Now, the next, I have to talk about the exceptions to feedback proceedings. Under paragraph 18 of Appendix B, Pre-action Protocol, it provides several exceptions. The first exception is where the claimant is a body corporate or partnership. Now if one of the motor vehicles involved in the accident is a government vehicle or a foreign registered vehicle or diplomatic vehicle, 25:04 then FIDRAC proceedings is not applicable. Now if the potential defendant has a counterclaim of \$3,000 or more, then FIDRAC is also not applicable. 25:20 Now, if the potential defendant has a counterclaim that is less than \$3,000, but the claimant is not claiming under his own insurance policy in respect of that counterclaim, then FEDRAC is also not applicable. Now, in a case where the insurer has repudiated its liability to provide coverage, obviously you can\'t go to FEDRAC. 25:51 And if there\'s an allegation that the claim, counterclaim or defence is tainted by fraud or by other conduct constituting a criminal offence in connection with which a police report has been lodged, FEDRAC proceedings will also not apply. Now if the proceedings are ongoing in FEDRAC after a lapse of six months, 26:19 From the time when all the relevant documents pertaining to the accident that were requested by Fiedrecht had been submitted, or from the date of the claimant\'s first interview at Fiedrecht or whichever is later, then the claimant is allowed to file the claim in court. And finally, you have the catch-all exception. If there is any other good and sufficient reason shown to the court, 26:49 why the claim ought not to have been lodged a fee direct. 26:54 then the exception applies. 27:00 Now, assuming that the FEDRAC protocol applies and there is non-compliance, so what will happen? Now, when there\'s non-compliance, the court, in exercising its discretion as to course, can take into consideration whether proceedings have been lodged at FEDRAC before the commencement of the court proceedings. 27:29 If the court finds that the quantum of the claim before apportionment is actually below \$3,000, and the claimant fails to bring the matter to feedback before filing an election in court, then there is a potential non-compliance. 27:48 Or if the claimant in a court action obtains a judgment that is more favourable than the award made at the abdication of the claim by free-drag, then the court has a discretion as to cost. Now needless to say, in any litigation, if especially when you practice long enough, you will know that cost is a matter of discretion. 28:19 So paragraph 19 of the Appendix B which provides various cost sanctions states that the court will not impose sanctions against the claimant where there are good reasons for non-compliance. For example, attempts were made to resolve the matter through other alternative dispute resolution forums or any other reasons. 28:52 So this is something that is very unique to this area of practice. And so practitioner, please be familiar with paragraph 18, paragraph 19, and even paragraph 17 on the FIEDEC procedures. 29:16 Other Pre-Ridgid Consideration 29:21 first multiple collision. 29:26 Now in a situation where there are more than one motor vehicles is involved and the claimant decide to sue more than one defendant, there are some special rules or practices that a PIPD practitioner needs to be aware of. This part applies primarily to a NEMA claim. 29:56 claim is part of a combined personal injury and NEMA claim. 30:04 Now remember I was talking about the BOLA and the MCF among the motor insurers? So basically the scenario is like this. Various motor insurers in Singapore has come to a market agreement that where parties are involved in multiple chain collision and there is a NIMA claim. 30:33 of the vehicle that is directly behind the claimants will pay and settle the NEMA claim without seeking any contribution from the drivers behind or from the motor insurance behind. Now this is a market agreement that applies only to insurers, it does not strictly speaking 31:02 because the claimant is not a party to such market agreement. So this is something that is relevant even for claimant, even though it does not apply to them, because you will come across situations where the lawyers representing one of the defendants will come and tell you that, hey, my client\'s going to settle. 31:27 NEMA claim on a 100% basis, less whatever apportionment of liability the claimant may have to bear without seeking any contribution from the other vehicles behind. And this is regardless whether in actual fact the accident was really caused by maybe the last vehicle, the fifth vehicle or the fourth vehicle. So this is something that practitioner needs to 31:57 aware of and lawyers representing the claimant needs to know this because such arrangement may have a bearing on the issue of cause like how then do you abortion cause if for the NIMA claim one defendant is paying everything but for the personal injury claim all the defendants are making a contribution towards the settlement of the 32:26 personal injury claim. Then how do you split the cost? Now these are some of the challenges that PIPD practitioner will have to come and there are of course many ways to go about resolving such challenges. 32:45 Then there\'s also limitation period. 32:49 there are different limitation period for the two types of claim. For a PMA claim or personal injury claim, the limitation period is three years, but for a NEMA claim, the limitation period is six years. So you need to bear in mind that if you are representing a mixed claim or claimant with a mixed claim, 33:18 Make sure that you found the read within the 3 year time band. 33:25 Another unique aspect of PIPD work is this case of Ng Kong Chut vs Tang Bige. 33:39 Justice Berlinda Ang was faced with a situation where the claimant has actually filed multiple suits arising from the same accident. The claimant filed one suit to make a NIMA claim. He filed another suit to make a claim for his personal injury. 34:07 and he found another one to make a claim for his excess. 34:15 By the time a third suit was filed. 34:20 The lawyers representing one of the defendants disputed the claim and claimed that it amount to an abuse of court process, because the said insurer or the defendant has to pay three different sets of legal costs for three suits. 34:44 So the issue came before Justice Belinda Ang, and to summarize the outcome of her decision, is that she held that in an accident such as this, there is actually only one cause of action. The cause of action resulted in different reliefs that the claimant can make. And the reliefs would consist of either claim for 35:14 damages for personal injuries or a claim for damages for property damage. So the bottom line is that the claimant must put all the claims in one single action. Justice Belinda Ang also cited a section in the State Court Act that provides that a claimant is not allowed to split the course of action. So on that reason, 35:45 the defendant\'s argument that the claimant was wrong to file multiple suit was upheld. 35:54 So if you are advising a claimant, then the claimant tells you that I have both a property damage claim and I have a personal injury claim. And then he tells you that, ah, but for my property damage claim, the repairers who repaired a car has his own, has their own set of lawyers which they want to use and they want to engage them to make a claim for me. But 36:24 I would like to engage my own lawyers for my personal injury claim. Make sure that you don\'t end up with a situation where two different lawyers file two different suits and then you will run foul with this case. Now I\'ve come to the end of part 3 of this video presentation. Please bear in mind that whatever I shared with you in this video is meant to be\... 36:54 introduction. So well when you practice law and there are people who will tell you that PIPD work is simple, you will realize that when we go into details it is not as simple as we think it is and there are many challenges and which will 37:25 come about in the practice of PIPD work, and it is something that can excite you intellectually, and something that you need to exercise a great deal of ingenuity as well as coming up with practical ways to resolve a matter within perhaps the spirit or the ideals of the rules of code, especially when you\'re dealing with 37:55 claims that may not have significant or extremely high value. Thank you. 00:01 Hi, this is part 4 of the PIPD video presentation. And good news, this is the final video presentation. So let\'s do a quick recap of what we have talked about. We talk about the laws and the useful references that a PIPD practitioner should have. We talk about. 00:30 what a person should do at the scene of the accident, what you should do when the client comes to your office. We talk about the legal process at the pre-read level, how there is certain protocol that governs the pre-read process. We also talk about other considerations. And today we will continue with our talk. 00:59 on the legal process. 01:07 So there is a decision to bring the matter to the courts. One of the most basic questions one then need to ask is where should I commence my court action? So I will talk a little bit about that. I will also share with you how the High Court manages PIPD cases and how the State Court manage PIPD cases. I will also share a little bit on 01:36 statutory provision for enhanced jurisdiction. I will talk a little bit on common expert or otherwise known as single-join expert which I\'ve sort of mentioned a little bit when we\'re talking about getting an SJE for a NEMA claim at the pre-read stage. 02:00 PIPD work is also unique in the sense that the public trustees do get involved in personal injury claims. I will talk a little bit about that. I will also talk a little bit about intervening for insurers where the insurance company has disclaimed their contractual liability to indemnify their policyholder or the insured driver. I will also talk a little bit about\... 02:29 Workman Injury Compensation Claims and finally I will also talk about Motto Insurance Bureau otherwise known as MIB. So let\'s go into the first area which is Where to Sue. 02:48 deciding where to sew. 02:52 Now one unique feature about PIPD work is the automatic transfer from a case in a high court to the state court. This is provided under the Supreme Court of Judicature Transfer of Specified Proceedings to the District Court Order 2016. A little bit about the history. 03:19 With effect from 1st December 2016, the State Court\'s jurisdiction for claims arising from road traffic accidents and claims for personal injury resulting from industrial accidents was increased from 250,000 to 500,000. This change was part of the plans to 03:45 increase the Civil District Court\'s monetary jurisdictional limit in phrases, which was first announced by the Chief Justice at the State Court\'s work plan in 2016. Now what this means is that parties who have quantified their claim, that is between \$250,000 to half a million dollars, will still need to file. 04:15 to read or as it is now known as the original claims in the High Court. 04:23 Now, then these cases will be automatically transferred to the State Court, where it will be assigned a DZ-S. Now once it\'s been transferred to the State Courts, they will follow the same statutes, 04:51 that are currently available to any district court cases of the same nature. 04:59 So this is a feature that is only unique for PIPD work. 05:09 Now there is also difference in the way the Supreme Court or the High Court handles and manages PIPD work compared to that of the State Courts. So let me talk a little bit about this in a very general and from a macro point of view. In the Supreme Court, once an action has been filed, 05:38 the court will fix a PTC date. A PTC is usually presided by an assistant registrar. And when the matter moves, 05:55 towards a trial and a trial date has been given or will be given in an immediate future, then the PTC AR will then fix what we call a J-PTC, which is a PTC or pre-trial conference in case those of you who are not sure what PTC means. There will be a J-PTC before that trial judge. 06:25 And at that JPTC session, councils and the judge will discuss how to manage the trial process, as well as to discuss any preliminary issues or any issues regarding the trial and the case itself. 06:45 Now, trial is usually bifurcated in the High Court, meaning to say that the first trunch will be trial on liability and thereafter it will proceed to an assessment of damages. 07:02 Now, the practice of the high chord presently is 07:09 that assessment of any sum below a million dollars will usually be handed by an assistant magistrate. However, if the quantum of the claim is a million dollars and above, it will usually be heard by a judge instead. 07:30 In the stay court however, their approach is very different. 07:37 When the court action has been filed, it will go to what we call CDR, which stands for Court Dispute Resolution, and that is entire department in the state court. 07:55 And at the CDL, it\'s very similar to mediation of some sort. The only difference is that it is mediation and neutral evaluation by a CDL judge. 08:10 There are specific registrars circular from the state court that governs how CDR should be conducted asynchronously. 08:23 in the State Court Practice Directions, Appendix C, there\'s also a write-up on CDR process. So do go into the State Court Practice Direction 2021 editions, Appendix C, to have an idea what the CDR process works. So a CDR judge will give usually what we call an early neutral evaluation, 08:53 Practitioners will call it CDR indication. Usually, this contains an indication how FOT should be negotiated or agreed between the parties at a certain percentage. 09:11 In the event that the settlement cannot be reached, the CDR judge will then give directions for the matter to proceed to trial. 09:24 Also 09:28 In the event that the matter went to trial and an interlocutory judgment or a decision on liability has been rendered given by the court or alternatively settled, the matter then proceeds to ADCDR. Now ADCDR is similar to CDR. The only difference is that ADCDR involves a neutral evaluation on 09:56 quantum of the damages. 10:00 and this is where parties will have to fill in a common form, otherwise known as the quantum indication form, or QIF, which is very similar to a Scott schedule. Both sides will put their respective clients positioned on quantum for various items of claim and a judge or a deputy 10:30 his or her indication on what would be a fair amount to settle these various heads of claim. Again in event that there is no settlement following such indication, then the ADCDR judge will fix an assessment of damages hearing. 10:53 Now, the greatest advantage about PIPD litigation in the state court is that CDR and ADCDR are provided free of charge. On the other hand, the ARs and the judges needless to say in the High Court do not give indication as to how the matter could be settled or give an indication how quantum. 11:22 should be settled. Occasionally, you may come across one or two judges who might give some preliminary views as to how perhaps liability can be agreed, but they are not obliged to do so and that really depends on the judge who hears your case in the High Court. In the State Court on the other hand, all PIPDs are subject to a fine of \$1,000. 11:50 investigation of cases must go through CDR. So the course indication is compulsory and structured. If you have a method in a high court and you wish to go through some form of mediation or neutral evaluation, then what you can do is to approach the Singapore Mediation Centre or go through private mediation. 12:20 Most of the time, if you wish to go for mediation, especially at the Singapore Mediation Centre, the PTC judge would invariably give parties some time to go through the mediation process. So this is the first part, deciding where to sue. 12:44 Sometimes a claimant may have started his or her action in the district court. 12:53 And then as time goes by or in the process of the court case, further injuries arise secondary to the accident or there are complications or there are circumstances that has developed that becomes a reason for a quantum to be adjusted upwards and in some instances 13:21 the Quanta may possibly exceed the limits of the District Court. Now strictly speaking, when this happened, the claimant needs to transfer his case to the High Court. However, there is a provision, known as the Enhanced Jurisdiction of the State Court by Agreement that allowed Sir Parthi to keep the case in the State Court, and this is provided 13:48 under Section 23A of the State Courts Act. It provides that where parties to an action agree by a memorandum signed, either by the parties or by their respective lawyers, a district court will have jurisdiction to hear and try the action even though the amount claimed in the action exceeds the district court limit. 14:18 One of the primary reasons why parties would want to keep the case in the district court is of course to have access to the free CDR process and AD CDR. 14:33 Now the same also applies to a High Court case. So if a claimant has filed his claim in the High Court and he or she wants to have access to the CDR and AD CDR processes, now that claimant can do that if he transfers his case from the High Court to the State Court pursuant to Section 23A. 15:00 Of course, if you do not wish to have free access to CDR and AD CDR processes in the State Court, a litigant in the High Court can also consider mediation at the Singapore Mediation Centre or with a private mediator. So these are some of the options that is available to a litigant for a PIPD work. 15:27 and it allows a party to either transfer the case from the High Court to the State Court or to keep the matter at the State Court. 15:39 other aspects of PIPD litigation that weren\'t specially mentioned in this video presentation. The first is the case of Tan Bu Tian vs Pric Advisory Services Pvt Ltd. This is a case brought by Mr Tan Bu Tian against Pricewaterhouse. Strictly speaking, this is not an accident case or a PIPD case. It is actually a PIPD case. 16:08 an action based on professional negligence. 16:13 Now since the action was based on negligence, the Court of Appeals decision on this case has direct impact on PIPD litigation especially in the State Court. Now in this case, and I\'m not going to go into details about the facts of this case, however 16:36 The plaintiff, Mr Tan, having to prove a case under negligence, has to show that there was a duty owed by the defendants, there was a breach of that duty and there was loss suffered by Mr Tan. In particular, Mr Tan has to show that the alleged loss was a direct result of course by the negligence of the defendant. 17:08 The High Court Judge dismissed the case because there was no proof of loss. 17:16 In the appeal, Mr Tan argued that he thought that the trial, being a bifurcated trial between liability and quantum, there was no need to provide any evidence on lost. However, the Court of Appeal said that this is a wrong argument. Causation, according to the Court of Appeal, 17:43 is one of the fundamental elements in establishing liability for negligence. And Mr Tan has incorrectly and wrongly conflated the separate questions of whether he has to establish that the defendant\'s breach has caused the loss with the quantum of the loss which is something that will be dealt with at the assessment of damages. 18:14 Now in this case, this is what this case is all about. 18:20 How this has affected PIPD litigation in the state court is that it affected a practice that has developed in the state court where parties entered a consent judgement but they reserved causation, especially in personal injury cases. Now if you remember, we were talking about the differences. 18:49 between the high court and the state court in managing PIPD cases. And I\'ve mentioned the CDR process. Now usually in a CDR indication, 19:06 A CDL judge will give an indication on liability. But the liability in this regard is liability for the accident or the judge indication or early neutral evaluation on the party\'s responsibility for the accident. Where such responsibility is to be a portion between the parties, the court will give an indication based on percentage. 19:37 Usually this is based on useful references such as the MAG, which is a textbook reference written by the state court judges as to how responsibility for the accident is to be apportioned. So when parties go for CTR, their focus is on responsibility for the accident or liability for the accident. 20:06 or the quantum of the claim. Because at the state court, the idea of how much will come later in the second stage at the AD CDR stage. So because of this process of CDR and AD CDR, it is often common for parties at the CDR to talk purely on liability for the accident. And invariably, 20:35 They will not talk about whether the accident caused the particular injury or not. Because liability in this case is basically on fault for the accident. 20:50 A lot of the defendant solicitors who represent insurance companies will then add a clause in the interlocutory judgement, often times entered by consent through the CDR process to say that they reserve issue of causation. Now Tang Wutian has established that such practices is incorrect because causation is a liability. 21:20 issue. So that have made an impact on PIPD cases. The second case is a recent decision 21:38 Now this is an accident case. In fact, it is a PI claim of a very small quantum. 21:46 Parties to this action agreed to transfer the case to the High Court to determine whether causation can be reserved and whether causation can be dealt with at the assessment of damages stage. 22:05 And this case follows the interpretation of Tan Ruten, which stands for the proposition that causation is a liability issue. 22:16 I will not go into detail of this very long decision by a High Court Judge. Safe to say that the High Court Judge reinforced the position in Tan Wujian that if a party disputes whether the claimant was injured at all, that has to be dealt with at the liability stage even if the case is or the trial is bifurcated. 22:48 One secondary issue that rose from this decision in Saumizan was whether partial causation can be dealt with at the assessment of damages. Now this happens when a claimant suffers more than one injury. So the issue before the court was what if the defendant agrees one of the injuries. 23:16 of the many injuries were due to the accident but he disputes the other injuries. Can this be doubted with the assessment? Basically, the High Court Judge or the Judiciary Commissioner as he was then 23:34 stated that if you enter the interlocutory judgment, you can no longer raise issue of causation. So even if you have a case where a claimant has more than one injuries, and if the defendant wishes to dispute causation of any of these many injuries, it has to be dealt with at the liability 24:04 So this case again changes the practice of PIPD litigation, especially in the state court, where often time parties do raise issue of causation even at the assessment of damages. 24:25 Another interesting aspect of PIPT litigation is this idea of single-join expert or what it is now known as common expert under the new rules of court. 24:41 Now, Order 12, Rule 3, Rules of Court 2021, provides that parties should have one common expert. Now this applies essentially for High Court matters. Parties should agree to one expert and may not rely on more than one expert on any issue. In the State Court, however, 25:09 where a matter, be it a MC suit or a DC suit, is under the simplified trial process, parties must appoint an independent expert to give expert opinion or expert evidence. Now if parties are unable to agree, the court will appoint. So for litigation in the district 25:39 court for PIPD work, parties need to agree on one expert and if they cannot agree, they have to file an application for the appointment under the single application pending trial process of the Rules of Court. 26:03 Also do take note of paragraph 2 of the pre-action protocol appendix B where it talks about the SJE process and the pre-repair survey. I have spoken about this earlier so I will not repeat the same thing. 26:25 An interesting case is Lee Song-Yang vs Hafizah binti Abdul Rahmat where the court gave very useful write-up on the SJE process and a little bit about its history and how the court would approach and exercise its discretion in deciding who should be appointed as an SJE. 26:54 I will not comment much about this case, except that I will leave to you to read this case for a deeper understanding. 27:07 Another unique feature of PIPD litigation is the involvement of the public trustee. 27:16 Now this is provided under the Motor Vehicles Third Party Risk and Compensation Act. Without going into a lot of details about the Act and the history, I\'ll just give a very brief summary of PT\'s involvement. 27:37 It is recognized that where a party is injured in an accident or an accident victim, especially those who suffered very serious injury, there is a fear that the lawyer representing the claimant might somehow run away with the money and deprive the suffering victim of compensation or receiving the compensation money. There is also a fear that 28:07 litigants or victims of accident claims may be exposed to unusually high, solace and client fees of their own lawyers. So the public trustee was brought in to address these issues and concerns. 28:29 Together with the courts, there is provisions in the Motor Vehicles Third Party Recent Compensation Act which requires certain settlement process to be approved by the court. This applies especially when the victim is a person under disability, be it he is a minor or a person who has suffering from mental incapacity. 28:58 So settlement involving these people needs to be approved by the public trustees or at the very least approved by the court. 29:10 The second concern which I\'ve mentioned is the concern that the lawyers would overcharge the accident victim and this in turn eats into the proceeds or the fruits of the litigation and in certain instances it might completely wipe out whatever damages the accident victim might recover. So the public trustee has been entrusted to approve Solicitors and Clients\' costs. 29:38 and this will ensure that there is no overcharging by the solace of the accident victims legal fees. And to put this into practice, you have what we call the Usual Consequential Orders. And this is specified under section 18. 30:04 Bracket 3 of the Motor Vehicles Third Party Risk and Compensation Act. So basically, it stipulates that despite the provision of any written law, public officers or an advocate and solicitor\'s acting in respect of matters referred to in subsection 3, in other words a claim for personal injuries, must not receive or accept any payment of money other than 30:33 costs that are agreed between him or her and the public trustees, or assess costs in the default of such agreement with the public trustees, or costs that the public trustees may determine to be costs of that public officer or advocate or solicitor. If the public officer or advocate or solicitor fails to proceed or begin proceedings for the assessment of costs within three months, 31:03 after the relevant date unless before that time the public officer or advocate of solicitors has agreed with the public trustees on course. So what this section provides is that number one any settlement sum received from the paying party 31:27 must be paid to the claimant directly, except the solider\'s and client\'s costs. Now, this is important because there is a practice. 31:43 prior or other than this section 18, that when a party reaches settlement, the entire settlement sum is actually paid to the lawyer representing the claimant. 31:59 but in personal injury cases, 32:05 If only Solicitors and Client costs can be received by the lawyer, the balance must be paid directly to the claimant. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent the Solicitors from taking the settlement sum and run away with the money. 32:28 And of course, the second element is the approval of the solace and cleanse cost to ensure that there is no overcharging. 32:39 out. 32:42 The Usual Consequential Cost can be found in a standard template known as Form 7, Appendix A1 in the State Court Practice direction. So you can look at this form and find the exact wording for what we call the Usual Consequential Order or commonly known as UCO. 33:09 Also, you should refer to the Public Trustees Circular No. 1 of 2014, where there are guidelines from the public trustees as to how settlement sum is to be paid and other aspects of this area that I have been talking about. Again, I will not go into detail, but basically what it provides is that when processing payment 33:37 the insurance company will issue payment to two different sources, one straight to the claimant, the other one the S&C cost straight to the lawyer. 33:53 This is my final slide. Yippee! I will share on three areas and I\'ll do so as quickly as I can. Intervening for insurers. You will recall that I\'ve talked about moto insurers exercising their contractual right to refuse to provide indemnity to their policy holder or to the driver in question due to 34:22 terms and conditions in the motor insurance contract. Even though the insurers have disclaimed their contractual obligations to provide coverage, the Motor Vehicles Third Party Risk and Compensation Act provides that an insurance company of a motor vehicle must satisfy any judgement an accident victim might obtain in respect of a PI claim. 34:52 Due to this provision, the financial interest of the motor insurers is affected. This is where many times the motor insurers might instruct solicitors to apply for leave or permission from the court to allow them to participate in a PI claim. This is in their capacity as an intervener. So this is the first area that you need to 35:22 be aware of and there will be provisions in the rules of court to allow the application for the jurors to intervene. 35:35 Another area that you should know, especially bodily injury claims arising from industry accidents is the Workmen Injury Compensation Act. This is actually a topic that requires a separate course if you ask me, but I will just give you a very brief write up or comment on this. 36:04 When a workman is injured in the course of employment, he may seek redress under the Workman Injury Compensation Scheme. So basically, this is a process outside the courts. And there are provisions in this act to regulate and tell you how to go about doing a claim. 36:28 However, the workmen always have a right to bring the case under common law and sue the employer in the courts. And in this situation, when he exercised his rights under common law, the matter will come to the courts. In the state court in particular, there are special provisions under the CDR process for such work. 36:56 injury compensation. So that\'s a very brief talk on this area. 37:06 MIB. 37:09 Now, when we have a situation when there is a road traffic accident, but the potential defendant is untraced, cannot be found, unknown, or he has an insurance but the insurance contract is void, then MIB has to come in. So for you to have an understanding how this works, you should\... 37:39 with the MIB agreement, you should also read the Motor Vehicles Third Party Risk and Compensation Act, because MIB agreement is drafted or entered on the basis that all motor insurance is compulsory. 38:00 The MIB agreement also provides procedures how to make a claim or apply for compensation with MIB in a situation where the potential defendant has no insurance or where the potential defendant is untraced or unknown. Now just a brief comment. In a situation when the potential defendant is uninsured. 38:31 In other words, he has a moto insurance, but for some reason, that policy is not activated, be it because it was void due to fraud or the moto insurance policy has already expired by the time the accident happened. Now, in this situation, basically, MIP will ask the last known moto insurers to handle the claim on their behalf. 39:00 that insurance is often termed as the insurance concern. Of course, in a case where the potential defendant is completely unknown, then you will have to apply to seek compensation from MIB directly. 39:20 So I\'ve come to the end of my video presentation, and this is actually my first attempt to do a video lecture. And it\'s fun and quite challenging. I really hope that this four videos would help you in the course of your journey in litigation should you choose to do so. And I really wish all of you. 39:49 a very successful career ahead of you and have fun. Goodbye. B24 PIPD - Lecture 3 - Deciding where to sue - With effect from 1st December 2016, the State Court\'s jurisdiction for claims arising from road traffic accidents and claims for personal injury resulting from industrial accidents was increased from 250,000 to **[500,000]**. - Differences between Litigating in Supreme Court and State Courts - State Court Practice Direction 2021 editions, Appendix C CDR indication by the State Courts - Neutral evaluation on quantum of damages - **[ Enhanced Jurisdiction of State Courts by agreement]** (s23(a) States Court Act) - Tan Woo Thian v PriceWaterhouseCoopers Advisory Services Pte Ltd \[2021\] 1 SLR 1166 - Salmizan bin Abdullah v Crapper Ian Anthony \[2023\] SGHC 75 - **[Single joint Experts (SJE)]** - Court will only select an Expert from the list provided by both parties. In the event that the Parties cannot agree on one SJE, then SAPT is filed for the Court to appoint. Paragraph 2 of Pre-action Protocol Appendix B - Lee Song Yam v Hafizah binte Abdul Rahman \[2019\] SGMC 24 - Usual Consequential Orders - Role of the public trustee - Overcharging - Form 7 Appendix A1 State Courts Practice Direction (2021) - See also Public Trustee Circular 1 of 2014 - Intervening for Insurers Workmen Injury Compensation - MIB - Motor Insurers' Bureau Agreement Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risk and Compensation) Act - will be provisions in the rules of court to allow the application for the jurors to intervene (?) In the course of employment - Applies where the potential defendant is **[uninsured or untraced MIB will compensate them]**. - Uninsured and Insurers' Concerned Untraced and MIB