Bill to clarify that egregious abuse of court process will amount to contempt of court passed

28 November 2024

On 13 November 2024, the Administration of Justice (Protection) (Amendment) Bill (“Bill”) was passed in Parliament. The Bill is intended to safeguard the administration of justice in Singapore by clarifying that egregious abuse of the court process will amount to contempt of court.

Egregious abuse of process

Under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (“AOJPA”), interference with court proceedings or the administration of justice may amount to contempt of court and attract criminal sanctions. Contempt by interference with the administration of justice may be committed in various ways, including by abusing the process of the court in an egregious manner. Examples of egregious abuse include:

  • commencing civil proceedings to seek financial damages, despite knowing that the claim is without foundation, for the ulterior motive of oppressing the defendant;
  • filing fictitious claims for the improper purpose of delaying criminal proceedings; and
  • persistently commencing actions and making applications that are totally without merit.

The impact of egregious abuse of the court system is serious as individuals are forced to bear the financial and psychological burden of undergoing court proceedings for matters that should not be going to court. Further, limited public and court resources are diverted away from other deserving, meritorious cases, and the court system is strained and weakened as a result. Over time, the trust in Singapore’s justice system will be eroded.

Amendments clarificatory in nature

The current provisions of the AOJPA already cover egregious abuse of process. However, as the language of the relevant provision is broad, the Bill seeks to make clearer how the general standard set out in the relevant provision applies in the context of abuse of process. The amendments in the Bill are therefore clarificatory in nature and do not lower the current threshold for contempt of court.

The Bill also seeks to send a clear signal to deter abuse of the court process by making it clear to the public and potential court users that egregious cases of abuse of process will amount to contempt of court and that such conduct can attract criminal sanctions.

Key amendments

Under the Bill, three categories of egregious abuse of process are set out:

  • The conduct or commencement of a court proceeding, which the person knows or ought to have known involves a deception on the court, is fictitious or constitutes a mere sham.
  • The conduct or commencement of a court proceeding, which the person knows or ought to have known is manifestly groundless or without foundation, and which involves the process of the court being used for an ulterior or improper purpose. These requirements are cumulative. There must be both a manifestly groundless claim, and an improper purpose.
  • The conducting or commencing of multiple or successive court proceedings, which the person knows or ought to have known are manifestly groundless or without foundation.

The amendments do not change the current legal standard. They provide clearer signposting in setting out the types of conduct that would amount to contempt
of court.

Persons who cause or abet such conduct will also be liable for contempt of court.

Reference materials

The following materials are available on Singapore Statutes Online sso.agc.gov.sg and the Ministry of Law website www.mlaw.gov.sg: