SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Randolph Khoo, See Chern Yang, Tan Ei Leen and Sharon Ki, Drew & Napier
(a) for judgment debtors who were individuals, international jurisdiction could be established under the REFJA if that individual had a place of business in the foreign country at the time the proceedings were commenced, provided that the proceedings were in respect of a trans - action effected through that place of business (Section 5 (3)(a)(v) of the REFJA); and (b) for corporate judgment debtors, international jurisdiction could be established under the REFJA if the corporation’s principal place of business was in the foreign country (Section 5 (3)(a)(iv) of the REFJA) or if it had an office or place of business there, provided that the transaction in dispute was effected through that office or place (Section 5 (3)(a)(v) of the REFJA). • A judgment that is capable of enforcement under the laws of the originating foreign jurisdiction in which it was obtained (Order 60 Rule 3 (1)(c)(i) of the ROC 2021) – this was a threshold requirement, but the threshold was low and could be satisfied as long as the foreign judgment was enforceable “in some manner” (see Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SPDR (2009) 2 SLR(R) 166 at (9) and (52)). By contrast, under the REFJA(A), a broader scope of judgments may potentially be enforced as follows. • The foreign judgment need not be from a supe - rior court – lower court judgments may also be recognised and enforced in Singapore under the REFJA(A). • The foreign judgment need not be a money judg - ment – non-money judgments can be enforced in Singapore if the court finds that it is “just and convenient” to do so (Section 4 (4)(a) of the REFJA(A)). Based on the reasoning adopted in past cases, the test is expected to require the court to assess whether allowing registration would cause prejudice to the judgment debtor. The court will likely allow registration “where it is practicable and the interests of justice require it” (see Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SPDR (2009) 2 SLR(R) 166 at (20) to (21), citing Yong Tet Miaw v MBF Finance Bhd (1992) 2 SLR(R) 549 at (31)). In the absence
of any strong prejudice, the courts will generally be inclined towards enforcement ( Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corp v Asia Pulp & Paper Co Ltd (2014) 1 SLR 776 at (46)). Alternatively, the court may order payment of what it considers to be the monetary equivalent of the non-money relief ordered by the foreign judgment (Section 4 (4)(b) of the REFJA(A)). • The foreign judgment need not be final and conclu - sive. This is made clear by the expanded definition of “judgment” under Section 2 (1) of the REFJA(A). Interlocutory judgments such as interim freezing orders (ie, Mareva injunctions) may be recognised and enforced in Singapore under the REFJA(A). Judgments that are subject to a pending appeal may also be registered (see Section 3 (5)(a) of the REFJA(A)) – although the court still retains discre - tion to set aside the registration (see Section 6 (1) of the REFJA(A); see also Ramesh Vangal v Indian Overseas Bank (2023) 2 SLR 261). Notwithstanding the foregoing, it should be noted that the REFJA(A) operates solely on the basis of reciproci - ty or agreement between Singapore and the individual countries gazetted under it. As such, not all judgments of the countries gazetted are immediately registrable under the REFJA(A). Only the specific judgments described in an order made by the Minister for Law under Section 3 (1) of the REFJA(A) are registrable under the REFJA(A) (see Ha Chi Kut (suing as the sole executrix of the estate of Khoo Ee Liam, deceased) v Chen Aun-Li Andrew (2023) 3 SLR 283 at (51)). At the time of writing, the only types of judgments from the UK and other Commonwealth states that may be enforced under the REFJA are “money judgments that are final and conclusive as between the parties to it” (see Schedule 1 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (United Kingdom and the Com - monwealth) Order 2023). Likewise, the only judgments from the HKSAR that may be registered under the REFJA(A) are money judgments. This is because, to date, no orders have been made under Section 3 (1) of the REFJA(A) to extend Part I of the REFJA(A) to non-money judg - ments of any description from the HKSAR (see Ha Chi Kut (suing as the sole executrix of the estate of Khoo
423 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook