Perwira Ariffin Bank Bhd (formerly known as Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Bhd) v Lee Hai Pey and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Warren Khoo L H J
• Judgment Date: 09 July 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 184
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1054 of
• Date: 09 July 1997
• Year: 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Leo Cheng Suan (Chu Chan Gan & Ooi)
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 184
• Defendant Counsel: Sim Lin Piah (Toh Tan & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Reciprocal enforcement,Foreign judgments,ss 3(1) & (2) Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act,Civil Procedure,Application for Malaysian judgment to be registered in Singapore -Enforceability of Malaysian judgment pending -Merits of case

Judgment:

WARREN LH KHOO J

The second defendant, Mr Tham, was a director of a Malaysian company called Golden Produce Sdn Bhd. He stood guarantor for the company`s indebtedness to the plaintiffs. In September 1988, the plaintiffs obtained a summary judgment before a Registrar of the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur for sums of money due under the guarantee, interest and costs against him and other parties, one of whom was Mr Lee, the first defendant in this originating summons. Mr Tham and Mr Lee appealed to a judge of the Kuala Lumpur High Court but their appeal was dismissed in October 1990. Their appeal against that decision to the Supreme Court of Malaysia was similarly dismissed in November 1994.

2.On 28 October 1996, on an application by the plaintiffs under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264), made ex parte as permitted by the rules, an assistant registrar made an order that the Malaysian judgment be registered in this court.

3.The second defendant Mr Tham applied to have the registration set aside or to have proceedings in relation to the registration order stayed pending determination in the Malaysian courts of the question of the enforceability of the Malaysian judgment. His application was dismissed. I heard the second defendant`s appeal against that dismissal, and I ordered a stay in the alternative terms of his application. I now give my reasons.

4.Under the Malaysian rules of court, as under our own, a judgment which is six or more years old cannot be enforced without leave of court. The judgment in question in this suit is such a judgment. So leave of the Malaysian court is and was necessary for it to be enforceable.

5.The plaintiffs had previously obtained an order in this court allowing them to register the judgment here. However, Mr Tham succeeded in having that set aside on the ground that no leave had been obtained from the Malaysian court and the judgment was thus not enforceable. That was in February 1996.

6.What happened after that was that the plaintiffs applied for such leave. They applied ex parte. So Mr Tham did not know anything about it. They got the leave on 23 May 1996. Having got the leave, they then took out the present originating summons and applied afresh to register the judgment. On hearing about this application and about the leave granted by the Malaysian court, Mr Tham immediately instructed his lawyers in Kuala Lumpur to apply to set aside the order of the Malaysian court granting leave. That application to set aside was taken out on or about 20 November 1996. It appears that the principal debtors, Golden Produce Sdn Bhd,...