Order 20 Rule 11 of the Rules of Court (ROC) provides that clerical mistakes or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission in judgments or orders may, at any time, be corrected by the court by summons without an appeal.

Section 8(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act provides that the court shall have the power to hear any proceedings "in camera" if the court is satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice, public safety, public security or propriety, or for other sufficient reason, to do so.

Order 42 Rule 2 of the ROC provides that, where proceedings are heard "in camera", any judgment pronounced or delivered in such proceedings shall not be available for public inspection.

Section 22 of the International Arbitration Act (IAA) provides that proceedings under the IAA shall, on the application of any party to the proceedings, be heard "otherwise than in open court".

Section 23 of the IAA provides that, where proceedings are held "otherwise than in open court", the court may give directions as to whether any and, if so, what information relating to the proceedings may be published. The court shall not give such a direction unless all parties to the proceedings agree that such information may be published or the court is satisfied that the information would not reveal any matter that any party reasonably wishes to remain confidential, including the identity of any party.

In August 2007, in relation to the plaintiff's application, the court ordered that the hearing of Suit Y of 2006 (Suit Y) be held "in camera". The plaintiff's application was made in order to preserve the confidentiality of the matters in a related arbitration as, pursuant to Order 42 Rule 2 of the ROC, proceedings held "in camera" should not be made available for public inspection. The application stated that it was being made:

The defendant then applied, under Order 20 Rule 11 of the ROC, for the wording of the court order to be amended to say that Suit Y would "be heard otherwise than in open court" as opposed to "in camera".

The defendant argued that the wording in the court order should be amended as the application proceeded under section 22 of the IAA, not Order 42 Rule 2 of the ROC. The defendant further argued that section 23 of the IAA applied so the court judgment in Suit Y (Judgment) could be published as long as it was a redacted version of the Judgment.

The plaintiff submitted that the court order should not be amended pursuant to Order 20 Rule 11 of the ROC as the use of the wording "in camera" was not a clerical mistake or an accidental slip or omission which could be amended by the court. They further argued that the court had no jurisdiction to amend its own order, to consider the application to rehear the order, or to change the order into one of a fundamentally different nature.

The plaintiff argued that Order 42 Rule 2 of the ROC governs proceedings heard "in camera" whereas section 23 of the IAA governs proceedings heard "otherwise than in open court". They argued that, as the proceedings were heard "in camera", there was an absolute bar to publication of the judgment under Order 42 Rule 2 of the ROC.

The plaintiff made various other arguments, including that publication of the judgment would defeat the general principle in Singapore's arbitration law that arbitrations are confidential as well as private.

The court allowed the defendant's application to amend the court order under Order 20 Rule 11 of the ROC.

The court found that the wording "in camera" in the court order was an accidental slip or omission. It considered that there was a difference between a mistake relating to the legal effect of a court order and a mistake relating to the use of words to express the manifest intention of the court.

The court came to this conclusion by noting that all parties, as well as the court, at the hearing of the plaintiff's application, and in the supporting documentation, dealt with the application on the basis of sections 22 and 23 of the IAA, not Order 42 Rule 2 of the ROC. It was clear to the parties at the hearing that the court intended Suit Y to be heard "otherwise than in open court" pursuant to sections 22 and 23 of the IAA.

The court agreed with the plaintiff that a court should not be allowed to consider or vary a decision once an order has been perfected. However, in this case, the amendment would not vary the decision, rather it would accurately reflect the decision that was actually made.

In relation to the plaintiff's argument relating to the confidentiality of arbitrations, the court found that the confidentiality of the arbitration was sufficiently preserved as the redacted version of the judgment adequately concealed the identities of the parties and other matters which the plaintiff wished to remain confidential.

The judgment also considered the English case of Department of Economics, Policy and Development of the City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Co [2004] EWCA Civ 314. In that case, the English Court of Appeal accepted that, even though a hearing may have been in private, judgment should be given in public where this can be done without disclosing significant confidential information, as it might offer future guidance to lawyers and practitioners.

The court therefore ordered that a redacted version of the judgment be published.

This case highlights the fact that a court is able to amend the wording of a court order to accurately reflect the decision that has been made. Further, a judgment in relation to arbitration may be published provided that the confidentiality of the arbitration is adequately preserved, that is, through use of redaction.