Singapore Law Blog

In a landmark decision, the High Court held that the e@dr Centre, under which mediation sessions such as Court Dispute Resolution (CDR) conferences are held, is not a court conferred with jurisdiction to grant orders. As such, there must be further endorsement by a court with such jurisdiction and judicial power, in order to crystallise the recorded terms of the settlement reached at a CDR conference into a consent judgment.

Her Honour Justice Lai held so in a decision issued on 27 April 2007 in the case of Lock Han Chng Jonathan (Jonathan Luo Hancheng) v Goh Jessiline [2007] SGHC 58.

In that case the terms of a settlement was recorded before a district judge who was presiding as the mediator in the CDR conference (“the Settlement Judge”). Unfortunately some disagreements subsequently arose concerning the terms of settlement. In the meanwhile, an order of court was extracted by one party. The other party then attempted to set aside the order and the matter came up for appeal in the High Court.

At the High Court appeal, the appellant submitted that the Settlement Judge had no jurisdiction and power to issue an order of court, since the CDR conference was not a court proceeding and the e@dr Centre, under which CDR conferences take place, was not a court vested with judicial authority. The High Court judge agreed and set aside the earlier order of court.