Litigants in Person: Principles and Practice in Civil and Family Matters in Singapore by Jaclyn L Neo & Helena Whalen-Bridge Singapore: SAL Academy Publishing, 2021. 177 pp. Hardcover: S$64.20

Abstract

The ‘multiple distinctive challenges’ that litigants in person (LiPs) ‘present to the legal system’ (p 12), will be an issue that will resonate with anyone interested in civil justice across the common law world. This concise volume, focusing on the issues from Singapore’s perspective, is a welcome and valuable addition to the literature. It draws on multiple data sources – official data, case law, interviews, and a survey – to explore ‘the challenges that a lack of representation poses to the wider justice process’ (p 12). While the issue at the centre of the book is framed as a ‘lack of representation’, the considered solutions offered in the final chapter include systemic changes to make the system more accessible to unrepresented litigants. Commendably, the book presents a nuanced understanding of LiPs, noting the tendency of many legal actors to characterise LiPs as ‘“difficult”, “trouble-making”, “obsessive”, and even “vexatious”’ (p 17). The book contains a comprehensive review of the position of LiPs in four common law jurisdictions – the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States – and compares these to the situation in Singapore (Chapter 2). In conducting this review, the authors make the astute observation that discussion about LiPs has been influenced by particular foci in these jurisdictions, for example in the United Kingdom the changes to the legal aid system and in the United States, the concern with the legal needs of low-income Americans (p 12). This discussion might have been enriched by including Canada, which has detailed research on LiPs and relevant case law. For example, in Pintea v Johns, the Canadian Supreme Court endorsed the ‘Statement of Principles on Self-Represented Litigants and Accused Persons’, a document that provides guidance to judges, court administrators, and lawyers, ‘to ensure that self-represented persons are provided with fair access and equal treatment by the court’. Nevertheless, it will be very useful to anyone seeking a quality comparative survey of the issues. The authors go beyond policy and academic papers in their review; also analysing annual reports and other official materials to estimate numbers of LiPs in various Singapore jurisdictions (Chapter 2). This is useful data, which is interpreted with the appropriate caution that such records require, and provides at least a partial picture of LiP activity in Singapore courts. Hopefully such data will motivate the relevant bodies to heed the authors’ call for ‘coordinated and sustained data collection’ to