SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Randolph Khoo, See Chern Yang, Tan Ei Leen and Sharon Ki, Drew & Napier
On this note, it is worth highlighting that Singapore deposited its instrument of accession to the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters on 16 May 2023. This convention facilitates and streamlines the process for the service of court and related documents in civil and commercial matters overseas, thereby ensuring that Singapore judgments may be recognised or enforced outside Singapore and – in turn – providing greater legal certainty for Singapore litigants to enforce their rights in foreign jurisdictions. The terms of the conven - tion came into force in Singapore on 1 December 2023 through amendments to the ROC 2021 and the SICC Rules. This is expected to lead to overall reductions in cost and delays. 3.6 Challenging Enforcement of Foreign Judgments The common defences to enforcement across both the statutory and common law enforcement regimes (Section 5 of the REFJA(A); Sections 14 and 16 of the CCAA) are that: • the defendant was not served with the process of the original court; • the judgment was obtained by fraud; • the judgment was obtained in breach of a settle - ment agreement; • the judgment was obtained in breach of natural justice; • the judgment is contrary to public policy in Singa - pore; • the judgment conflicts with an earlier judgment by the Singapore courts or an earlier foreign judgment entitled to recognition under Singapore law; and • enforcement of the judgment would amount to the direct or indirect enforcement of foreign penal, revenue or other public laws (see Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd v PT Humpuss Intermoda Trans - portasi TBK (2016) 5 SLR 1322 at (73)). Under the CCAA, there are other discretionary grounds on which the court may refuse to recognise or enforce a foreign judgment (Section 15 of the CCAA). Two of the more notable grounds are:
• where the choice of court agreement is void under the law of the originating foreign jurisdiction; and • where a party to the choice of court agreement has no capacity under Singapore law to enter into the agreement. That said, the CCAA expressly provides that the Sin - gapore courts cannot review the merits of the foreign judgment nor challenge any findings of fact on which the court assumed jurisdiction unless the judgment was given by default (Section 13 (3) of the CCAA). However, a finding that a choice of court agreement is valid would be binding on the Singapore courts, regardless of whether or not the foreign judgment was given in default (Section 15 (1)(a) of the CCAA). 4. Arbitral Awards 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards The Arbitration Act 2001 (AA) governs the enforce - ment of domestic arbitral awards, while international arbitration awards are recognised and enforced under the International Arbitration Act 1994 (IAA). The AA applies to any arbitration where the place of arbitration is Singapore and where Part II of the IAA does not apply to the given arbitration. Under Section 5 of the IAA, an arbitration is international in nature and governed by the IAA where: • at least one of the parties to the arbitration has its place of business in a state other than Singapore; • the place of arbitration or the place where a sub - stantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship to be performed is situated outside the state in which the parties have their place of busi - ness; or • the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Com - mercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”) has force of law in Singapore, subject to modifications and exceptions in the IAA. However, Chapter VIII of the UNCITRAL Model Law (on recognition and enforce -
427 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook