SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Jansen Chow and Ang Leong Hao, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
having jurisdiction in the matter. (c) Section 5(2)(c) of the REFJA provides that the registration may be set aside if the Singapore court is satisfied that the notice of registration had not been served on the judgment debtor or that the notice of registration was defective. • If the registration has not been set aside, the judgment creditor who wishes to apply for an enforcement order to enforce a foreign judgment that is registered the REFJA must produce to the court an affidavit of service of the notice of registration of the judgment and any order made by the court in relation to the judgment (Order 60 Rule 10 of the Rules of Court 2021). 6. Privileges 6.1 Invoking the Privilege Against Self- Incrimination The right to silence can be invoked when a per - son is asked to provide information that may incriminate them. However, the fact that the answer or the document to be provided will expose the person to civil liability is generally insufficient to attract the privilege. The right is therefore more commonly applied in criminal proceedings. In Singapore, the right to self-incrimination is not a constitutional right under the principles of natural justice. When summoned for an investigation, a person must state what they know about the facts and cir - cumstances of the case, except that they are not required to disclose anything which they think might expose them to a criminal charge, such as admitting or suggesting that they committed a crime.
At the same time, the court has the power under Section 116(g) of the Evidence Act 1893 to pre - sume that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. As a result, courts have drawn adverse inference against a party who fails to produce documents or call crucial witnesses to testify at trial, both in civil and criminal proceedings. For the court to draw adverse inference, there are two main requirements that need to be sat- isfied. • There needs to be a substratum of evidence that establishes a prima facie case against the person against whom the inference is to be drawn. In other words, there must already be a case to answer on that issue before the court is entitled to draw the desired inference. • That person must have access to the infor - mation they are said to be concealing or withholding. Note that, in criminal proceedings, Section 261 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 expressly provides the Singapore courts with the power to draw adverse inference from the silence of the accused for failing to mention any fact that they subsequently rely on in their defence which the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when questioned, charged or informed of their offence. 6.2 Undermining the Privilege Over Communications Exempt From Discovery or Disclosure While communications between a lawyer and a client attract legal advice privilege or litigation privilege, such communications can be stripped of their privileged status on the basis of “fraud exception” .
311 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook