Are Your Claims Under The New Rules Of Court – 3 Essential Takeaways

Applying these takeaways will help motor workshops settle your motor accident claims expeditiously, efficiently and cost-effectively.

1. From 1 April 2022, the new Rules of Court will take effect. The new rules will affect how motor accident claims are made. We know that motor workshops will feel anxious about change, especially with no one to guide you. This article tells you what you need to know about the changes, so that you can transit to the new way of making third-party insurance claims expeditiously, efficiently and cost-effectively.

The “Ideals”

2. For oldies grumbling about change, do note that the new rules do not target just motor accident claimants. The new rules apply to the majority of all court proceedings ¹, save for instance, criminal and matrimonial proceedings. If you feel unhappy about change, remember there are many diverse others like you who are affected. So, stop whining like a victim and let’s embrace the change.

3. To embrace the change, it helps to know the “Ideals” (i.e. motivations) behind the new rules. The “Ideals” seek to achieve court proceedings that are expeditious, efficient and cost-effective². Seen in this manner, the new rules are good. Surely motor workshops would want claims settled expeditiously, efficiently and cost-effectively. If you do want claims settled in this manner, remember these 3 takeaways summarized in this acronym A.C.E. :

1. 1. • A    Amicable Resolution
      • C    Close Interaction
      • E    Evidence Collation

Takeaway #1 – Amicable Resolution

4. The duty on claimants to make a pre-writ offer is now given statutory footing. Before you issue a writ of summons, you are required to make an offer to the third-party to compromise the claim, unless you have reasonable grounds not to do so³. This offer has to be valid for at least 14 days unless parties agree otherwise⁴.

5. If you are those motor workshops who are reluctant to lock yourself to a minimum asking price, and prefer to wait and see how much more the third-party will increase their offer (akin to watching stock prices rise), beware. Even though you may eventually obtain what you want, you may be penalized with costs if you cannot explain satisfactorily to the court why you hadn’t make a pre-writ offer.  If you are unsure what is an appropriate asking price to make an offer to the third-party, consult a lawyer.

Takeaway #2 – Close Interaction

Promoting efficiency

6. A close interaction between the claimant (i.e. the car owner) and the lawyer is a must in order to achieve efficiency of the court process (one of the “Ideals”). For instance, the new rules now require:

• 1. The Statement of Claim (“SOC”) has to be signed by both the claimant and the lawyer, and no Reply is to be filed unless with the approval of the court ⁵. With the claimant having to sign on the SOC , it presupposes that he would have given full instructions to his lawyer to draft a detailed and robust SOC, which would lessen the need to file a Reply or to amend the SOC.
  2. Each party is only allowed to make one single application pending trial (“SAPT”)⁶. In this one single application, a claimant’s lawyer has to consider all the matters that are necessary for the case to proceed expediously and to apply to court all at once (emphasis added). The concept of SAPT is to promote greater efficiency over the current process where a party may file multiple applications – one for each matter necessary fot the case to proceed expeditiously – at various stages, which would prolong and drag the court process.

7. Some workshops may act as a claimant’s agent to pass documents or relay facts to the lawyer. With the workshop standing in between the claimant and the lawyer, this layered communication model is inefficient, which conflicts with the “Ideals”. We illustrate 1 problem this layered communication model may pose under the new rules.

Problem 1

8. A claim that is due to commence court action may not proceed because the claimant may be reluctant to come down to the lawyer’s office to sign the SOC, instead preferring the lawyer to liase with his agent (the motor workshop) instead. But the motor workshop cannot sign on the SOC on the claimant’s behalf. As a result, claim gets delayed. If the limitation period is expiring, the claim may get time-barred.

9. Had the claimant interacted closely with the lawyer right from the start (instead of through a conduit), rapport between the claimant and the lawyer would be established even before the due date to commence court action. Getting the claimant to sign the SOC will be more efficient. Close interaction with the client will also help the lawyer to plan for the matters that need to be applied to court for – for e.g. addition of an extra liable party, filing of a Reply as a further pleading – when the time comes to make a SAPT.

Takeaway #3 – Evidence collation

Promoting expeditiousness

10. The “Ideals” promote expeditiousness. Collation of evidence – whether scene pictures, video, third-party’s identity and contact details, is expected to be done early. Once the claim enters the court, the suit will move ahead expeditiously. For instance, the new rules now require:

• 1. Every list of documents filed to also contain a copy of the enumerated document⁷.A document not disclosed in this manner may not be relied on unless with the court’s permission⁸.
  2. No application to court may be made less than 14 days before commencement of the trial, unless it is a special case⁹.

11. Again, a layered communication model (see, paragraph 7 above) will hinder a lawyer from collating evidence directly from the claimant. We illustrate yet another problem this model may pose under the new rules.

Problem 2

12. Lawyer enumerates a document titled “Scene photographs” in the List of Documents and encloses 5 photographs given by the motor workshop. After filing the List of Documents, the lawyer receives another 3 photographs, this time directly from the claimant. Permission from the court is needed to file a supplementary list of documents to disclose the 3 photographs. Even if permission is granted, as the photographs were disclosed late, the court may impose a late filing fee of $50 per day for each day in excess of the time due for disclosing those 3 photographs¹⁰. These cumulative late filing fees would eat into the claim proceeds.

13. Had the claimant interacted closely with the lawyer right from the start, all photographs could have been given all at once at an early stage. Having all evidence collated early will also reduce the need to file a supplementary Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief to enclose “last minute” evidence. If there are less than 14 days before the commencement of trial, there is a real risk that this “last minute” evidence, notwithstanding their relevance, may be shut out.

Conclusion

• 14. If you want to continue to ace your claims under the new rules, remember: A. C. E.
  1. • A Amicable Resolution (make a counter-offer)
     • C Close Interaction (between client and the lawyer)
     • E Evidence collation (done early)

15. Applying A.C.E., you can rest assured that your claims can be settled expeditiously, efficiently and cost-effectively (i.e. the “Ideals” behind the new rules)