Forum: Make it easier for those who win cases at Small Claims Tribunals to get their money

The Small Claims Tribunals (SCT) were established to provide ordinary citizens with a simple, inexpensive way to resolve disputes without lawyers. However, when defendants don’t pay up, the convoluted enforcement process completely undermines this purpose.

Recently, I won a case at the SCT against a company that provided fraudulent services. Despite a clear order, the company refused to pay the judgment sum. This is where the supposedly simple system breaks down.

To enforce the SCT order, claimants must navigate complex district court procedures. One must file an originating application, ex parte summons and various affidavits – terms most laypeople would not understand.

When I was at the State Courts filing these documents, the secretary told me people often need to make multiple trips to get everything correct.

The process involves multiple court systems, confusing filing procedures, and documents that must be sworn before commissioners of oaths. What started as a straightforward SCT claim became a maze of legal procedures, practically requiring a lawyer’s expertise.

This creates a troubling situation. Many successful SCT claimants may give up on enforcement because the process is too daunting, or they have to incur legal costs that could exceed their claim amount. This effectively rewards defendants who refuse to pay SCT orders, knowing that enforcement is beyond most people’s capabilities.

If you win an SCT case against someone who refuses to pay, should you need a law degree or a lawyer to enforce a judgment from a court specifically designed to help ordinary citizens?

While the system works well up to the judgment stage, the enforcement process needs urgent reform to maintain the SCT’s purpose of providing accessible justice.

A simplified, user-friendly enforcement process would ensure that SCT judgments actually result in justice being served.

Solomon Poon Ke Foong