MAS issues response to feedback on proposed amendments to appeals regulations

27 August 2024

On 31 July 2024, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (“MAS”) issued its response to feedback received on its consultation paper on proposed amendments to the regulations under MAS’ purview governing appeals to the Minister, which involve an Appeal Advisory Committee (“AAC”) (“Appeals Regulations”).

As stated in the consultation paper, which was published on 13 October 2021, MAS will be revoking the current Appeals Regulations and issuing new Appeals Regulations under the various Acts administered by MAS, and will also be introducing new Appeals Regulations under the Credit Bureau Act 2016. The first of the new Appeals Regulations, the Financial Services and Markets (Appeals under Part 3) Regulations 2024 (“FSMA Appeals Regulations”), took effect on 31 July 2024 in conjunction with the commencement of Part 3 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022 on prohibition orders. The new Appeals Regulations will be substantially similar across all the various Acts.

Filing of parties’ respective cases

Order in which parties file their cases

To improve the efficiency of appeals, MAS proposed that the order in which parties file their respective cases be reversed: MAS will file its detailed reasons for the decision being appealed against first, and the appellant will file its response thereafter. MAS and/or the appellant must seek leave from the AAC to respond to each other’s cases.

In its response, MAS said that the appellant should not be given an automatic right of last reply as doing so may have the effect of reducing the efficiency of appeal proceedings or prolonging the same. Thus, MAS is of the view that it is preferable for parties to seek leave from the AAC if they wish to respond to each other’s case.

Timelines for parties to file their cases

To give parties sufficient time to prepare their cases, MAS proposed to extend the amount of time that both parties have to file their respective cases to 28 days.

In its response, MAS said that the 28-day timeframe is designed to account for the full variety of cases that may pass through the appeal system, including more complex cases which may require extensive preparation. In more straightforward cases, MAS retains the ability to provide its reasons in a shorter timeframe that would allow the appeal process to proceed more quickly. Moreover, under the FSMA Appeals Regulations, the appellant may ask the AAC for more time to file its case, and the AAC has the power to grant the extension of time.

AAC’s powers to conduct appeal

Case management conferences

MAS proposed to introduce the concept of a case management conference (“CMC”) during which the AAC gives directions, taking into consideration the views of the parties. The proposal aims to give the AAC greater flexibility to accommodate the specific needs of each case.

In response to a suggestion that the Appeals Regulations should specify the timeline within which the first CMC ought to be held, MAS said that it was of the view that the AAC should be given flexibility to decide when to call the CMC, since appeals vary in complexity and the AAC may require more time to review the parties’ cases in more complex cases before calling for a CMC.

Form of hearing

To save time and resources, especially in straightforward appeals, MAS proposed to give the AAC the power to conduct a hearing in person or by video conference, or by way of written submissions, or by any other means.

In its response, MAS said that it will be retaining the AAC’s power to conduct a hearing by way of written submissions and that it will not circumscribe the situations in which the AAC may decide to conduct proceedings by way of written submissions. Given that each appeal has its own unique facts and circumstances, such circumscription may unduly limit the AAC’s ability to conduct proceedings in the most appropriate and efficient manner.

Miscellaneous matters

Consolidation of appeal proceedings

To facilitate the efficient and consistent consideration by the AAC of closely connected decisions, MAS proposed to give the AAC the power to order appeal proceedings to be consolidated and heard together.

In its response, MAS said that as a safeguard against any risk of prejudice to any party, all the parties to the appeals that are the subject of consolidation may make submissions to, and be heard by, the AAC. The AAC will give due consideration to each party’s position before deciding whether to consolidate proceedings.

Confidentiality

MAS proposed to amend the provisions under the Appeals Regulations which permit MAS to withhold the disclosure of information to an appellant if MAS is of the view that it is not in the public interest to furnish such information to the appellant. The aim was to ensure that there is a proper and fair basis for claiming protection from disclosure, and to make provision for the Minister to decide whether and to what extent MAS should disclose or withhold the information.

Addressing feedback, MAS said that the Minister is not under a general duty to provide reasons for his decision on the confidential treatment of documents. However, where the Minister is of the view that it would be fair to provide reasons, the Minister may provide reasons for his decision. Where the Minister decides to provide reasons, the Minister may also limit the scope and depth of his reasons so as to ensure that there is no breach of confidentiality.

Summary of parties’ arguments

MAS sought feedback on its proposal for parties to submit a summary of their respective arguments to the AAC at the close of an appeal hearing, and that these summaries be included in the AAC’s report to the Minister. MAS’ proposal aimed to ensure that the AAC and Minister are provided with an overview of the key issues and arguments raised during the appeal.

In its response, MAS clarified that:

  • the Appeals Regulations will expressly provide that the parties are to prepare the summary of arguments;
  • where the AAC directs parties to file detailed closing submissions after the hearing, the summary of arguments would be in addition to those closing submissions; and
  • where no closing submissions are required by the AAC, the summary of arguments would be the parties’ final written submissions after the hearing.

Reference materials

The following materials are available on the MAS website www.mas.gov.sg and Singapore Statutes Online sso.agc.gov.sg: