Yes. In Singapore, parties can seek collective redress via representative proceedings, whereby one or more persons representing a ‘class’ of persons is entitled to bring or defend an action on behalf of that class.

In general, representative proceedings may be commenced in the General Division of the Singapore High Court pursuant to Order 4, Rule 6(1) of the Rules of Court 2021 and in the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) pursuant to Order 10, Rule 19(1) of the SICC Rules 2021, which provide that where numerous persons have a common interest in any proceedings, such persons may sue or be sued as a group with one or more of them representing the group. For representative proceedings in the SICC, there is the additional requirement for all persons in the group to have submitted to the SICC’s jurisdiction under a written jurisdiction requirement. Judgments / orders made by the Court bind all persons represented by the representative party.

For certain types of matters, specific statutes also allow representative proceedings to be pursued, such as Section 86 of the Competition Act 2004 and Section 85 of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004.

Apart from the statutorily prescribed collective redress mechanisms, the Appellate Division of the Singapore High Court had in-principle endorsed an arrangement that allowed multiple claimants to assign their claims to a special purpose vehicle (“SPV”), which would then bring a single claim on behalf of all the claimants and following the determination of the claim, distribute the net proceeds of the claim to the assignor claimants (the “SPV Structure”). Such arrangements are in-principle permissible where the following considerations are operative:

• the SPV was controlled by the claimants and not a third party;
• the litigation was funded by the claimants or their related entities;
• the SPV, as the assignee, does not share in the proceeds of the litigation and the fruits of the litigation would be paid out to the claimants according to the assignment terms;
• there was no control of the litigation by a third party litigation funder;
• there was otherwise no element of impropriety tainting any aspect of the SPV structure, particularly the assignments of the claims to the SPV; and
• the conduct of the proceedings through the SPV was not an attempt at cost-proofing the underlying claimants, and such concerns may be negated through the provision of security for costs by the SPV.

The Court recognised that “the use of an entity to “consolidate” all claims to efficiently bring a single high-value claim to court may be viewed as a modern-day alternative to a representative action” and that “such an assignment structure may (where appropriately used) also promote efficiency in the administration of justice; it obviates the need for the cumbersome task of filing hundreds, if not thousands of separate writs pending consolidation, thereby easing the strain on both litigants and the courts”.¹

Footnote(s):

¹ POA Recovery Pte Ltd v Yau Kwok Seng and others and another appeal [2022] 1 SLR 1165 (HC(A)) at [90].

Generally, there are no restrictions on the types of litigants that may bring representative proceedings. Any legal person, including individuals and companies, is entitled to commence representative proceedings provided they share a common interest with those whom they are representing in the proceedings.

It is not necessary for the interests of the class of represented persons to be identical.² In conducting this assessment, the court will apply the following principles:³

1. The class of represented persons must be capable of clear definition. This is critical because it identifies the individuals who are entitled to relief and who will be bound by the judgment – members of the class of represented persons must be identified by an objective criterion which bears a rational relationship to the common issues being asserted;
2. The proposed representative plaintiffs must adequately represent the interests of the class of represented persons, and must vigorously and capably prosecute the interests of the entire class;
3. There must be significant issues of fact or law common to all the claimants in a representative action. To this end, the courts must carry out a comparison of the significance of the common issues between the claimants with the significance of the issues which differ between them; and
4. All the claimants in a representative action must benefit from the relief granted by the court, e., they must have the same interest in the relief granted by the court.

As for collective redress proceedings initiated through the SPV Structure, the litigant would typically be a legal entity with separate legal personality capable of taking assignment of the claims to be prosecuted collectively. While there are no specific requirements for identity of interests among the class of claimants unlike in representative actions, it would generally be practicable to utilise the SPV Structure only where there is substantial similarity among the interests of the group of claimants that assigned their claims to the SPV; on the other hand, a diversity of interests among the group of claimants may render it impracticable to prosecute the claims on a collective basis.

Footnote(s):

² Koh Chong Chiah and others v Treasure Resort Pte Ltd [2013] 4 SLR 1204 (CA) at [26].

³ Koh Chong Chiah and others v Treasure Resort Pte Ltd [2013] 4 SLR 1204 (CA) at [78].

In theory, depending on the quantum of the dispute, representative proceedings can be heard before either the District Court (for claims more than S$60,000 but not exceeding S$250,000) or the General Division of the High Court (for claims exceeding S$250,000) at first instance. Representative proceedings can also be heard before the SICC if the action is international and commercial in nature, the parties to action have submitted to the SICC’s jurisdiction under a written jurisdiction agreement, and the parties do not seek any judicial review relief.

That said, claims not exceeding S$250,000 (i.e. the District Court claim threshold) typically do not justify the bringing of representative proceedings. Also, the aggregation of different persons’ claims for representative proceedings means the total claim sum typically exceeds S$250,000. Hence, in reality, the majority of representative actions are heard before the High Court.

Representative proceedings do not have to be based on a particular type of conduct or cause of action. The types of conduct and causes of action that are relied on in civil proceedings apply with equal force to representative proceedings, including contractual or non-contractual causes of action.

There are no express limitations on the types of claims that may be brought in representative proceedings.

Representative proceedings are less common in Singapore, with less than 10 reported court decisions to date. However, anecdotally, there has been an increase in the number of representative proceedings being commenced in recent years (see Point 7 below).

The first emerging business risk relates to the potential legal liabilities of blockchain developers / cryptocurrency issuers and their founders / directors.

In line with global trends, buyers of the collapsed TerraUSD stablecoin (“UST”) recently commenced representative proceedings in the General Division of the Singapore High Court against blockchain developer and stablecoin-issuer, Terraform Labs, and its co-founders, on the basis that they had allegedly made misrepresentations to the group of claimants, which induced the claimants to buy and hold UST even though its value was plummeting.⁴ Following an unsuccessful jurisdictional challenge by the respondents, a decision on the merits of the dispute is much anticipated.

The second emerging business risk relates to liabilities of healthcare service providers to customers in the event of widespread lapses in the provision of services.

The third emerging business risk relates to potential claims against country clubs and their proprietors.

Historically, the representative action mechanism has been most commonly used by country club members to sue the country club and/or its proprietors. In the case of Raffles Town Club, the members brought representative proceedings against the club proprietor for admitting an excessive number of members in breach of an implied term of the membership contract that the members would be provided with a “premier club”.⁵ In the case of Sijori Resort Club Sentosa, the members brought representative proceedings against the former club proprietor and the new club proprietor for breach of contract, misrepresentation and conspiracy to injure in connection with the transfer of ownership of the club.⁶ In the case of Pines Club, the members brought representative proceedings against the club proprietor and its founder for breach of contract and misrepresentation in connection with the redevelopment and relocation of the club facilities.⁷ More recently, it was reported that a group of around 50 members of the Singapore Recreation Club are taking steps to oppose resolutions passed in favour of carrying out rejuvenation works on the club’s facilities, which mandated that members contributed towards the costs of the works.⁸

In land-scarce Singapore coupled with the aging facilities of the country clubs, we anticipate seeing more representative proceedings initiated by dissatisfied club members in the near future.

Footnote(s):

⁴ Beltran, Julian Moreno and another v Terraform Labs Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHC 340.

⁵ Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Tan Chin Seng and others [2005] 4 SLR(R) 351 (CA).

⁶ Koh Chong Chiah and others v Treasure Resort Pte Ltd and another [2013] 4 SLR 1204 (CA).

⁷ Phua Seng Hua and others v Kwee Seng Chio Peter and another [2022] 2 SLR 98 (HC(A)).

⁸ https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/singapore-recreation-club-membership-fee-renovation-166-million-4252666 (Accessed 14 May 2024).

Singapore is an “opt in” jurisdiction. A judgment or order given in representative proceedings is only binding on persons who have given their written consent to be represented in the action.

There are two possible ways to commence representative proceedings in the General Division of the Singapore High Court.

First, where there are material facts in dispute, representative proceedings are commenced by way of an originating claim found in Form 8 of Appendix A to the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021. The originating claim is to be endorsed with a statement of claim found in Form 9 of Appendix A to the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 and must be personally served on the defendant(s). The statement of claim must include a clear description of the class of persons to be represented, the material facts of the dispute, the cause(s) of action as well as the relief sought. A list of claimants who have given their consent in writing to the representative representing them in the action must also be attached to the originating claim.

Second, where there are no material facts in dispute, representative proceedings are commenced by way of an originating application found in Form 15 of Appendix A to the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021. The originating application is to be supported by an affidavit setting out all the evidence that is necessary or material to the claim and must be personally served on the defendant(s). A list of claimants who have given their consent in writing to the representative representing them in the action must also be attached to the originating application.

Representative proceedings in the SICC are commenced by way of an originating application found in Form 5 of Appendix A to the SICC Rules 2021. The originating application is to be accompanied by a copy of the written jurisdiction agreement to which the claimant and defendant are party. Further, upon commencing proceedings in the SICC, the claimant is to pay a deposit and the applicable Court fees as provided in Order 26 of the SICC Rules 2021. The originating application must also be accompanied by a Claimant’s Statement in Form 6 of Appendix A to the SICC Rules 2021, which must contain a concise summary of (a) the material facts giving rise to the claim; (b) any alleged harm suffered by the claimant relevant to the relief sought; (c) the cause of action against the defendant; and (d) the relief sought including, where possible, an initial quantification of the claim’s amount. Finally, a list of claimants who have given their consent in writing to the representative representing them in the action must also be attached to the originating application.

Collective redress proceedings using the SPV Structure would be initiated in the same manner as above where the proceedings are commenced in the General Division of the High Court or the SICC. Additionally, the participating claimants must enter into deeds or agreements of assignment with the SPV to assign their claims to the SPV for collective prosecution. Generally, this should be done prior to the commencement of the collective redress claim.

All remedies available to claimants in regular civil proceedings will also be available to them in representative proceedings. The most common remedy sought by claimants in representative proceedings is an award of damages. Claimants may also seek non-pecuniary remedies such as specific performance as well as declaratory or injunctive relief.

Theoretically, yes. Nonetheless, regardless of whether proceedings are commenced on a representative or collective basis, in practice, punitive damages are seldom awarded in Singapore save in exceptional circumstances.

The current approach adopted is that punitive damages cannot be awarded for breach of contract claims.⁹ It may, however, be awarded in tort where the totality of the defendant’s conduct was so outrageous that it warranted punishment, deterrence, and condemnation.¹⁰

To date, punitive damages have not been awarded for representative proceedings in Singapore.

Footnote(s):

⁹ PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hongkong) Ltd and another appeal [2017] 2 SLR 129 (CA) at [135].

¹⁰ ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others [2017] 1 SLR 918 (CA) at [176].

No. Singapore abolished the jury system in 1970.

The measure of damages generally depends on the cause of action pleaded.

For example, for contractual and tortious claims, compensatory damages are generally awarded to put the claimants in a position as though the contractual breach or tortious act had not been committed. Damages may also be awarded on a restitutionary basis in relation to unjust enrichment claims.

There are no specific jurisdictional obstacles facing representative proceedings so long as the claimants can show that they share a common interest in the proceedings. To show “common interest”, it must be demonstrated that (a) the class of represented persons must be capable of clear definition based on objective criteria; (b) the purported representative must adequately represent the interests of the putative class; (c) there must be significant issues of fact or law common to the class; and (d) the entire class must benefit from the relief being sought.¹¹

However, the same jurisdictional arguments made in non-representative proceedings can also be made in relation to representative proceedings, such as limitation, laches, forum non conveniens.

For collective redress proceedings using the SPV Structure, there are added requirements (see Point 1 above) that the SPV Structure must adhere to failing which the Court may find the SPV Structure void for being contrary to the doctrines of maintenance or champerty, in which case the SPV would not have standing to bring the collective redress proceedings.

Footnote(s):

¹¹ Koh Chong Chiah and others v Treasure Resort Pte Ltd and another [2013] 4 SLR 1204 (CA) at [78].

There are no limits on the nationality or domicile of plaintiffs in representative proceedings. However, in representative proceedings commenced before the General Division of the Singapore High Court, if the claimants are ordinarily resident outside of Singapore, the defendants are entitled to apply for security for the defendant’s costs of the action pursuant to Order 9, Rule 12(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021. If the court grants the defendant’s application, the claimants will be required to furnish security for costs. In practice, security is commonly furnished by the claimants’ solicitors providing an undertaking to the defendant upon being put into funds, banker’s guarantee or by the claimants making payment of the security amount into court.

Presently, there are no international laws that impact the procedural conduct of representative proceedings in Singapore. Representative proceedings are governed by Order 4, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court 2021 Or Order 10, Rule 19(1) of the SICC Rules 2021.

Of course, international laws will affect the substantive conduct of representative proceedings insofar as they are the law governing the substantive dispute.

There are currently no bespoke mechanisms specifically for the collective settlement of representative proceedings.

Parties to representative proceedings may avail themselves of the same avenues to settle their disputes as parties in non-representative proceedings, such as mediation and negotiation.

The Singapore Courts generally do not exercise greater oversight of the settlement of representative / collective redress proceedings as compared to the settlement of non-representative / collective redress proceedings.

For all proceedings in the Singapore High Court, Order 5 of the Rules of Court 2021 impose an obligation on parties to consider amicable resolution, while empowering the Singapore Courts to oversee this process, whether the proceedings are representative or not. The powers of the Courts in this regard include ordering parties to refer their dispute to amicable resolution, suggesting solutions for amicable resolution and tailoring costs orders to the reasonableness of a party’s conduct during the amicable resolution process.

For all proceedings in the SICC, whether representative/collective or otherwise, Order 9 Rule 5 of the SICC Rules 2021 empowers the Court to make any orders to facilitate the amicable resolution of disputes including to direct parties to consider alternative means of dispute resolution.

To date, there are no reported decisions on the interaction between representative proceedings and regulators’ findings. However, anecdotally, if it is known that governmental authorities are investigating the very subject matter of the representative proceedings, it is not uncommon for parties to seek a stay of the representative court proceedings, for example pending the issuance of the authorities’ findings or a judgment in criminal proceedings brought by the prosecution. This allows for such findings to be relied upon at the representative proceedings.

To date, there has yet to be representative proceedings brought for ESG related-matters.

There are no specific provisions for litigation funding of collective redress / representative proceedings.

Nonetheless, pursuant to Section 3 of the Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Regulations 2017, litigation funding is permitted for all proceedings, including collective redress / representative proceedings, that are commenced in the SICC.

No. Pursuant to Section 107 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 and Rule 18 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, contingency fee arrangements are prohibited in Singapore irrespective of the type of proceedings being commenced.

For completeness, pursuant to Section 3 of the Legal Profession (Conditional Fee Agreement) Regulations 2022, conditional fee arrangements are permitted in certain circumstances including for proceedings (including representative or collective redress proceedings in the SICC, appeals thereon, and mediation arising from such SICC proceedings, for so long as the proceedings remain in the SICC.

Pursuant to Section 115A(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966, a conditional fee agreement is defined as “[a]n agreement relating to the whole or any part of the remuneration and costs in respect of contentious proceedings (whether relating to proceedings in Singapore or any state or territory outside Singapore) conducted by a solicitor, a foreign lawyer, or a law practice entity, which provides for the remuneration and costs or any part of them to be payable only in specified circumstances, and may provide for an uplift fee.” Some examples of conditional fee arrangements take the form of “no win, no fee” (ie, no professional fees payable if there is no successful outcome) or “no win, less fee” (ie, professional fees are payable at a discount and will be uplifted in the event of a successful outcome). The entry into and substantive requirements of a conditional fee agreement are heavily regulated under the Legal Profession Act 1966, the Legal Profession (Conditional Fee Agreement) Regulations 2022, and are guided by the Law Society of Singapore Council’s Guidance Note 5.6.1 of 2022 on Conditional Fee Agreements.

Yes. The making of cost orders is a matter for the Court’s discretion. Regardless of the type of legal proceedings, the default rule under Singapore law is that “costs follow the event” whereby the losing party is made to pay a portion of the costs of the winning party.

There are presently no proposals for the reform of representative proceedings.