Unrepresented litigants in Singapore
A prolegomenon to court typologies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1148Keywords:
Unrepresented, litigant, typologyAbstract
Unrepresented parties in litigation struggle with legal doctrine and puzzle over procedure. Judges provide some assistance in court, but they must exercise restraint so as not to raise questions of bias or favouritism. How do judges manage these interactions in the decision-making process? This article examines sample cases from one common law jurisdiction, Singapore, to identify the litigant in person (LIP) typologies in court-LIP interactions. There are likely a number of typologies that guide a court’s assessment and response to an LIP, but this article focuses on the typologies most relevant to judicial decision-making on legal issues, legal knowledge and credibility. Because legal knowledge and credibility typologies help courts evaluate LIPs, they assist courts to make decisions regarding unrepresented parties and allow cases to proceed to judgment. However, the typologies are not able to completely address the deficiencies LIPs bring to the dispute resolution process.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF 474
XML 498
References
Aristotle, 2004. Rhetoric 6–7. Trans.: W.R. Roberts. Mineola: Dover Thrift.
Collier, D., LaPorte, J., and Seawright, J., 2012. Putting Typologies to Work: Concept Formation, Measurement, and Analytical Rigor. Political Research Quarterly [online], 65(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912437162 [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Conley, J., and O’Barr, W., 1990. Rules Versus Relationships. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Genn, H., 2013. Do-it-Yourself Law: Access to Justice and the Challenge of Self-Representation. Civil Justice Quarterly, 32(4), 411–44.
Hill, A., 2018. How legal aid cuts filled family courts with bewildered litigants. The Guardian [online], 26 December. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/dec/26/how-legal-aid-cuts-filled-family-courts-with-bewildered-litigants [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Ho, H.L., 2014. Recent (Non)-Developments in an Arrested Person’s Right to Counsel. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 267–284.
Hunter, R., et al., 2002. The Changing Face of Litigation: Unrepresented Litigants in the Family Court of Australia. Sydney: Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales.
Johansen, S.J., 2006. This is Not the Whole Truth: The Ethics of Telling Stories to Clients. Arizona State Law Journal, 38, 980–981.
Judicial Council of California. 2019. Handling Cases Involving Self-Represented Litigants (Benchguide) [online]. April. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California. Available from: https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/benchguide_self_rep_litigants.pdf [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Kritzer, H.M., 2008. To Lawyer or Not to Lawyer: Is that the Question? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies [online], 5(4). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2008.00144.x [Accessed 26 January 2021].
McKinney, J.C., 1969. Typification, Typologies, and Sociological Theory. Social Forces [online], 48(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/2575463 [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Moorhead, R., 2007. The Passive Arbiter: Litigants in Person and the Challenge to Neutrality. Social and Legal Studies [online], 16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663907079766 [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Moorhead, R., and Sefton, M., 2005. Litigants in Person: Unrepresented litigants in first instance proceedings [online]. London: Department for Constitutional Affairs, 79–82. Available from: https://orca.cf.ac.uk/2956/1/1221.pdf [Accessed 26 January 2021].
National Center for State Courts, no date-a. Center on Court Access to Justice for All [online]. Williamsburg: NCSC. Available from: https://www.ncsc.org/microsites/access-to-justice/home [Accessed 26 January 2021].
National Center for State Courts, no date-b. Self-Representation Resource Guide [online]. Williamsburg: NCSC. Available from: https://www.ncsc.org/topics/access-and-fairness/self-representation/resource-guide [Accessed 26 January 2021].
OECD, 2016. Leveraging the SDGs for Inclusive Growth: Delivering Access to Justice for All [online]. Keynote remarks by Angel Gurría, Secretary-General. New York: OECD, 18 September. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/about/secretary-general/leveraging-the-sustainable-development-goals-delivering-access-to-justice-for-all.htm [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Richardson, E., Sourdin, T., and Wallace, N., 2012. Self-Represented Litigants: A Literature Review [online]. 24 May. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2713503 [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Scottish Civil Justice Council, 2014. Access to Justice Literature Review: Party Litigants, and the Support Available to Them [online]. Edinburgh: Scottish Civil Justice Council. December. Available from: https://www.scottishciviljusticecouncil.gov.uk/docs/librariesprovider4/scjc-pubilcations/literature-review-on-party-litigants-and-the-support-available-to-them.pdf?sfvrsn=2 [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Singapore Ministry of Law, 2015. “Enhanced Criminal Legal Aid Scheme set to provide greater access to justice” Press release. 19 May. Available at: https://www.mlaw.govsg/news/press-releases/enhanced-clas-to-provide-greater-access-to-justice.
Singapore Ministry of Law, 2015. Enhanced Criminal Legal Aid Scheme set to provide greater access to justice [online]. Press release. 19 May. Available from: https://www.mlaw.govsg/news/press-releases/enhanced-clas-to-provide-greater-access-to-justice [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Smith, M., Banbury, E., and Ong, S., 2009. Self-Represented Litigants: An Exploratory Study of Litigants in Person in the New Zealand Criminal Summary and Family Jurisdictions. Research report. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Justice.
Smith, M.R., 2003. Advanced Legal Writing: Theories and Strategies in Persuasive Writing. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
State Courts of Singapore, 2013. Annual Report [online]. Available from: https://www.statecourts.gov.sg/cws/Resources/Documents/Annual%20Report%202013%20(Full%20length%20-%20HTML).pdf [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Stauber, A., 2009. Litigious Paranoia: Confronting and Controlling Abusive Litigation in the US, UK, and Australia. International Review of Business Research Papers, 5(1), pp. 11–17.
Supreme Court of Singapore, no date. Legal assistance scheme for capital offences (LASCO) [online]. Last updated January 2021. Available from: https://www.supremecourt.govsg/rules/court-processes/criminal-proceedings/legal-assistance-scheme-for-capital-offences-(lasco) [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Toy-Cronin, B., 2015. Keeping Up Appearances: Accessing New Zealand’s Civil Courts as a Litigant in Person [online]. PhD Thesis, Philosophy. Dunedin: University of Otago, Faculty of Law. Available from: https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/6003/Toy-CroninBridgetteA2015PhD.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Trinder, L., et al., 2014. Litigants in person in private family law cases. London: Ministry of Justice, Analytical Series.
UK Ministry of Justice, 2019. Post-Implementation Review of Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) [online]. 7 February. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-implementation-review-of-part-1-of-laspo [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Williams, K., 2011. Litigants in person: a literature review. Research Summary 2/11 [online]. London: Ministry of Justice. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217374/litigants-in-person-literature-review.pdf [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Winkelmann, H., 2014. Access to Justice - Who Needs Lawyers?, Otago Law Review [online], 13(2). Available from: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/OtaLawRw/2014/2.html [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Yeo, H.Y., 1999. Provision of Legal Aid in Singapore. In: K.Y.L. Tan and G.K.Y. Chan, eds., The Singapore Legal System. Singapore University Press, p. 561.
Zorza, R., 2009. Self-Represented Litigants and the Access to Justice Revolution in the State Courts: Cross-Pollinating Perspectives Toward a Dialogue for Innovation in the Courts and the Administrative System. Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary [online], 29(1). Available from: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol29/iss1/3/ [Accessed 26 January 2021].
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Helena Whalen-Bridge
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
