Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Singapore

Yes. There are both common law and statutory means by which foreign judgments can be enforced in Singapore.

Under the common law, a foreign judgment may be recognised and enforced by commencing a fresh action for the judgment debt. The basis for this is that the foreign judgment creates an obligation on the part of the person against whom judgment has been rendered to make payment of the judgment debt. A claim for payment of the judgment debt is distinct from the original cause of action under which the judgment was obtained in the foreign jurisdiction. It is the judgment obtained in the fresh suit, not the judgment originally obtained in the foreign court, which is enforceable as a judgment in the domestic courts. To be enforceable at common law, a foreign judgment must be:

•  from a court of competent jurisdiction in the foreign country;
• final and conclusive on the merits under the law of that country; and
• for a fixed or ascertainable sum of money.

 There are several statutes which simplify the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments for stipulated countries. These statutes and the jurisdictions to which they apply are set out below. In respect of recognition and enforcement under these statutes, a judgment must be one that:

• is obtained in a jurisdiction which is a party to the relevant statute set out below; and
• satisfies the criteria under the statutes set out below.

The applicable statutes are the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959 (the “REFJA”)* and the Choice of Court Agreements Act 2016 (the “CCAA”).

Previously, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act 1921 (the “RECJA”) existed under the Singapore enforcement regime. It provided for the registration and enforcement of monetary judgments issued by a superior court from jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, India (except the states of Jammu and Kashmir), Pakistan, New Zealand, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the states of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, Norfolk Island and the Northern Territory, Sri Lanka, Windward Islands, Papua New Guinea and Hong Kong (for judgments obtained on or before 30 June 1997).

The RECJA has since been repealed with effect from 1 March 2023. With the repeal of the RECJA, Singapore’s statutory regime for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil proceedings has been streamlined and consolidated under the REFJA.

The REFJA applies to interlocutory and final judgments in any civil proceedings, or a judgment or order made by the court in any criminal proceedings for the payment of money as compensation to an injured party. The judgment must be final and conclusive between the parties, unless it is an interlocutory judgment. The sum payable cannot be in relation to taxes or a fine or other penalty. With the amendments to the REFJA that came into force on 3 October 2019, the scope of registrable judgments has been expanded to include both money judgments and non-money judgments, judgments of lower courts, interlocutory judgments judicial settlements, consent judgments and consent orders. With the repeal of the RECJA, in addition to the previously applicable jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (HK SAR), the following countries previously under the RECJA have now been transferred to the REFJA: namely, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Brunei Darussalam, and Papua New Guinea.

The CCAA applies to foreign judgments given in international cases where there is an exclusive choice of court agreement concluded in a civil or commercial matter, not extending to personal law matters such as family law, succession, bankruptcy and insolvency matters, carriage of passengers and goods, competition or anti-trust law, claims for personal injury or death brough about by an individual, etc. Applicable jurisdictions are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

The principles of law on the enforcement of foreign judgments are well-established and uncontroversial. In Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace) [2010] 1 SLR 1129, Singapore’s Court of Appeal (the highest judicial authority in Singapore) confirmed the position on common law action for enforcement of a foreign judgment, as set out in questions 1 above and 6 below.

No. For enforcement of a foreign judgment at common law, the party seeking to enforce the judgment may commence the claim on the basis of a judgment debt, i.e. the judgment is sufficient proof of the debt owed to the claimant without having to revisit the merits of the judgment.

For a judgment which is registrable under the REJFA or recognisable under the CCAA, the process is more streamlined. Once the judgment is registered/recognised, it has the same force and effect as from the date of registration/recognition as if it had been a judgment originally obtained before the Singapore court.

In fact, in accordance with section 13(3) of the CCAA, the Singapore court is not allowed to review the merits of the foreign judgment in determining whether to recognise it, except to the extent necessary to apply the provisions of the CCAA, or where the foreign judgment is a default judgment.  

If permission to enforce is not resisted, the process is generally prompt and inexpensive. However, if enforcement is resisted, a full hearing may be required.

The time and expense will therefore depend on the nature and complexity of the issues that arise.

Yes. We set out briefly the various grounds to challenge the recognition/enforcement of a foreign judgment under the common law and various statutory regimes below.

 6.1 Common Law

Where the recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment is sought under common law, a defendant may challenge the action on the following grounds:

•  that the foreign judgment had been procured by fraud;
•  that the enforcement or recognition of the foreign judgment would be contrary to Singapore’s public policy;
•  that the enforcement or recognition of the foreign judgment would be tantamount to the direct or indirect enforcement of foreign penal, revenue or other public laws; or
• that the proceedings in which the foreign judgment had been obtained were contrary to natural justice.

6.2 REFJA

A foreign judgment will not be registered if the Singapore court is satisfied that:

• the foreign court had no jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case;
• the judgment debtor did not (notwithstanding that process may have been duly served on him) receive notice of those proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to defend the proceedings and did not appear;
• the judgment was obtained by fraud;
• the enforcement of the judgment would be contrary to public policy in Singapore; or
• the rights under the judgment are not vested in the person by whom the application for registration was made.

Additionally, the Singapore court may refuse registration if it is satisfied that:

• the matter in dispute in the proceedings in the foreign court had before the date of the judgment in that foreign court been the subject of a final and conclusive judgment by a court having jurisdiction in the matter (i.e. there was a prior final and conclusive judgment); or
• an appeal is pending, or that the judgment debtor is entitled and intends to appeal, against the judgment.

6.3 CCAA

Grounds on which the Singapore court must refuse recognition and enforcement:

• the defendant in the proceedings in which the foreign judgment was obtained was not notified of the document by which the proceedings were instituted, including the essential elements of the claim, in sufficient time to defend the proceedings unless the law of the foreign state allows the notification to be challenged and the defendant had entered an appearance and presented the defendant’s case without challenging the notification in the foreign court;
• the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud in connection with a matter of procedure;
• the recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of Singapore, including circumstances where specific proceedings leading to the judgment would be incompatible with the fundamental principles of procedural fairness in Singapore.

Grounds on which the Singapore court may refuse recognition and enforcement:

•  the exclusive choice of court agreement is null and void under the law of the state of the chosen court (unless the chosen court has determined that the agreement is valid);
•  a party to the exclusive choice of court agreement lacked capacity under Singapore law to enter into that agreement;
• the defendant in the proceedings was notified of the document by which proceedings were instituted, including the essential elements of the claim, in a manner incompatible with the fundamental principles in Singapore concerning the service of documents;
•  the foreign judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given by a Singapore court in a dispute between the same parties;
•  the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an earlier judgment given in another state between the same parties on the same cause of action and the earlier judgment satisfies the conditions necessary for recognition in Singapore under Singapore law;
•  the foreign judgment is being reviewed or appealed against in the state of origin or the time for applying for a review or appeal in the state of origin has not expired;
• the exclusive choice of court agreement designates a particular court and the chosen court has the discretion to transfer the case to another court in the same state and does so, and the transferee court issues a judgment against a party who had objected in a timely manner to the transfer; or
• if, and to the extent that, the foreign judgment awards damages (including exemplary or punitive damages) in excess of compensation for the actual loss of harm suffered by the party awarded damages.

Yes. Both domestic and international awards may, with the permission of the Singapore court, be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of the court.

The application for permission is to be made in the manner prescribed in the Rules of Court, and must include copies of the award and the arbitration agreement.

Foreign arbitral awards are enforceable in Singapore under Part 3 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (the “IAA”), which incorporates portions of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”) into domestic law. They may be enforced in the same manner as awards made in Singapore.

However, Singapore’s ratification of the New York Convention is subject to the reservation that that its provisions will be applied only to the enforcement of awards made in the territory of other contracting states.

Part 3 of the IAA provides that the party seeking permission to enforce a foreign award shall produce to the court originals or certified copies of the award and the arbitration agreement (with English translations if necessary). Section 31 of the IAA sets out exhaustively the grounds on which a court may refuse permission to enforce a foreign award in terms which mirror Article V of the New York Convention.

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) awards are enforceable pursuant to the provisions of the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1968.

In PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV [2014] 1 SLR 372, the Court of Appeal held that the courts have the power to refuse enforcement of international arbitration awards issued in Singapore under section 19 of the IAA, even if the award debtor has not actively challenged the award at an earlier stage under Articles 16(3) or 34 of the Model Law.

If permission to enforce an award as a judgment of the court is not resisted, the process is generally prompt and inexpensive. However, if permission is resisted or not given, or an application is made to have that permission set aside, a full hearing may be required.

The time and expense will therefore depend on the nature and complexity of the issues that arise.

Yes, but only on limited and narrowly defined grounds set out in the IAA and the New York Convention. This includes situations where:

• a party to the arbitration agreement in pursuance of which the award was made was, under the law applicable to him, under some incapacity at the time when the agreement was made;
• the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, in the absence of any indication in that respect, under the law of the country where the award was made;
• a party was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case in the arbitration proceedings;
• the award deals with a difference not contemplated by, or not falling within the terms of, the submission to arbitration or contains a decision on the matter beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration;
• the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place;
• the award has not yet become binding on the parties to the arbitral award or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made;
• the subject-matter of the difference between the parties to the award is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Singapore law;
• the enforcement of the award would be contrary to Singapore’s public policy;
• the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption; or
• a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the award by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.