DHL Global Forwarding (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Mactus (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

• Judgment Date: 09 September 2013
• Date: 09 September 2013
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 351 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 276 of 2013)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

DHL Global Forwarding (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

and

Mactus (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and others

Defendant

[2013] SGHC 170

Choo Han Teck J

Originating Summons No 351 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 276 of 2013)

High Court

Civil Procedure—Foreign judgments—Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed) —Malaysian judgment sought to be enforced in Singapore—Discrepancies between English and Malay versions registered—Payee was not judgment creditor—Judgment debtor against whom judgment sum was sought to be recovered one of three judgment debtors—Whether judgment could be registered in these circumstances

This was an application by a judgment debtor (‘the Judgment Debtor’) to set aside registration of a Malaysian judgment in Singapore and sought to be enforced against him. The judgment creditor (‘the Judgment Creditor’) had applied to register the judgment under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264, 1985 Rev Ed) (‘RECJA’). The Judgment Debtor, who was the guarantor of the judgment sum to be paid by the other two judgment debtors, had resisted the application but was unsuccessful. The Judgment Debtor was also the sole director and main shareholder of the other two judgment debtors. He argued that the registration should be set aside for the following reasons: First, the English version of the judgment sought to be enforced was unenforceable in Malaysia; second, the judgment was procured by fraud; third, registration under the RECJA was not permitted where there was no admission of liability; fourth, the Judgment Creditor was not a judgment creditor as he was not the payee; fifth, the Judgment Debtor was not a judgment debtor as he was only a guarantor of the first defendant; sixth, the Malaysian court had no jurisdiction over the matter as it required non-parties to the suit to make payment of and guarantee the judgment sum; seventh, the judgment was not a money judgment as it contained a penal notice; eighth, there was material non-disclosure during the ex parte application for enforcement of the judgment. The Judgment Debtor subsequently applied to set aside the judgment in the Malaysian courts and applied, on this basis, to stay the registration of the judgment in the Singapore court.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The reasons raised by the Judgment Debtor were not sufficient to set aside the registration of the judgment. The default was to permit registration of foreign judgments unless certain formal features were missing: at [4] .

(2) Both versions of the judgment bore the court seal and were registered together. Neither expert opinion suggested that the English version was unenforceable, notwithstanding the discrepancy between the versions which was a clear typographical error; both versions clearly referred to the same payee: at [5] and [6] .

(3) There was no evidence that the judgment was procured by fraud. The judgment sought to be registered was not materially different from the settlement agreement on which it was based and was entered in the presence of the Judgment Debtor's Malaysian lawyers who could have corrected any misrepresentation of the parties' settlement: at [7] .

(4) A consent judgment made without admission of liability was no different from any other judgment and there was no bar to its registration: at [8] .

(5) The Judgment Creditor was a judgment creditor under s 2 (1) of the RECJA as the judgment had been obtained by the Judgment Creditor, notwithstanding that the Judgment Creditor was not also the payee: at [9] .

(6) The Judgment Debtor was a judgment debtor under s 2 (1) of the RECJA as he was a person against whom the judgment was given, notwithstanding that his liability under the judgment was only triggered by the Judgment Creditor's inability to recover from the other two judgment debtors: at [10] .

(7) The Malaysian court did not act without jurisdiction. It was clear on the face of the judgment that the Judgment Debtor was being made liable in the judgment and there was no dispute that the Malaysian court had jurisdiction over the Judgment Debtor: at [11] .

(8) The ‘penal notice’ referred to by the Judgment Debtor was merely a notice to fulfil the formal requirements of an order which, if disobeyed, might lead to committal for contempt of court. The inclusion of such a notice did not provide any additional penalties beyond what would ordinarily be present in a money judgment and thus did not prevent...