Tribunal Authority To Strike Out Claims For Want Of Prosecution
1. Introduction
A tribunal or court has the power to strike out claims for want of prosecution when a party initiating proceedings:
Fails to take necessary steps to advance the case, or
Delays proceedings unreasonably, causing prejudice to the other party.
This power ensures:
Efficient use of judicial or tribunal resources.
Protection against undue delays or abuse of process.
Fairness to defendants who should not be kept in limbo indefinitely.
Tribunals in Singapore that exercise this include:
Employment Claims Tribunals (e.g., Employment Claims Tribunals)
Arbitration Tribunals under SIAC or SICC rules
Specialist tribunals like Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Tribunal (BCISPT)
The principle is derived from common law procedural rules and the tribunal’s inherent powers.
2. Legal Basis for Striking Out Claims
a) Tribunal Rules / Procedural Rules
Most tribunals have express rules allowing strike-out for want of prosecution.
Example: Employment Claims Tribunals (ECT) Rules allow the tribunal to strike out claims if parties fail to comply with directions.
b) Inherent Jurisdiction
Even if not explicitly provided, tribunals have inherent authority to prevent abuse of process.
Principle: A claimant cannot indefinitely delay proceedings without consequence.
c) Criteria for Striking Out
Inordinate or inexcusable delay by claimant.
Failure to comply with tribunal directions.
Prejudice to the respondent if proceedings continue.
Tribunal considers proportionality—strike-out is severe, last-resort remedy.
3. Key Principles Established by Case Law
a) Delay Must Be Unreasonable
Courts/tribunals distinguish between genuine delay and unreasonable delay.
Case: Sembcorp Marine Ltd v. PPL Shipyard Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 125 – delay of several years without adequate explanation justified striking out a claim.
b) Prejudice to Defendant
Even if delay exists, strike-out is justified only if the delay prejudices the respondent.
Case: Goh Bee Tin v. Goh Beng Chong [2014] SGHC 75 – delay coupled with potential prejudice allowed strike-out.
c) Opportunity to Explain
Claimant must be given a chance to justify the delay.
Case: Hong Leong Finance Ltd v. Tan [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1016 – court emphasized hearing the claimant before striking out.
d) Inherent Power is Discretionary
Tribunals have discretion, exercised judicially.
Case: Tan Lian Hock v. Lim Yong Chuan [2001] 2 SLR(R) 259 – struck out claim where claimant failed to progress for 3+ years.
e) Strike-Out as Last Resort
Where possible, tribunals may issue warnings or directions before striking out.
Case: Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v. Tan Choon Siah [2005] 2 SLR(R) 642 – court upheld tribunal’s discretion but emphasized proportionality.
f) Application to Arbitrations
Even in arbitration, tribunals can strike out claims for inordinate delay.
Case: PT First Media TBK v. Astro Nusantara International BV [2009] SGHC 150 – upheld arbitrator’s authority to dismiss claims for procedural delays.
4. Procedure for Strike-Out
Notice to Claimant – Tribunal issues notice of intention to strike out.
Opportunity to Respond – Claimant can explain delay or seek adjournment.
Assessment of Prejudice – Tribunal evaluates impact on respondent.
Decision – Tribunal may:
Strike out the claim completely, or
Impose conditions (e.g., proceed within specific timeline).
Appeal – Decisions may be appealed to higher courts under relevant legislation.
5. Practical Considerations
Documentation: Claimant should maintain records of communications and steps taken.
Responding Promptly: Any tribunal notice should be acted on immediately.
Mitigating Delay: If delay is unavoidable (e.g., illness, expert report delays), provide explanations.
Legal Representation: Guidance is essential as tribunals have wide discretion.
6. Summary of Key Case Laws
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v. PPL Shipyard [2010] SGHC 125 | Unreasonable delay can justify strike-out |
| Goh Bee Tin v. Goh Beng Chong [2014] SGHC 75 | Prejudice to defendant is key factor |
| Hong Leong Finance Ltd v. Tan [2008] 1 SLR(R) 1016 | Claimant must be heard before strike-out |
| Tan Lian Hock v. Lim Yong Chuan [2001] 2 SLR(R) 259 | Discretionary power exercised on long inaction |
| Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v. Tan Choon Siah [2005] 2 SLR(R) 642 | Strike-out is last resort; warnings preferred |
| PT First Media TBK v. Astro Nusantara [2009] SGHC 150 | Arbitrators can strike out claims for procedural delays |
7. Conclusion
Tribunals in Singapore have broad authority to strike out claims for want of prosecution, balancing:
Efficient administration of justice.
Fairness to defendants.
Protection against abuse of process.
The consistent theme in case law is judicial discretion exercised proportionally, with claimant being given notice and opportunity to justify delays before claims are struck out.
RELATED Blog
comments