Re Tan Patrick

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 12 May 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 138
• Date: 12 May 1994
• Subject Matter: Words and Phrases,Bankruptcy proceedings,Whether issue of notice relates to execution of judgment,Civil Procedure,Remedies,Whether enforceable through bankruptcy proceedings,Enforcement,'[I]n accordance with the terms of the judgment',Whether registration of foreign judgment can form basis for issuing notice of bankruptcy,s 3(1)(i) Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20),s 3(3)(b) Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264),s 3(3)(a) Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264),'Proceedings',Court's jurisdiction,s 4 Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Cap 265),Judgment obtained in foreign court but registered in Singapore,s 4(2) Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Cap 265),Credit and Security,Whether notice 'in accordance with the terms of the judgment',Notice,s 3(3) Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264),Foreign judgments,Validity,Whether jurisdiction of court restricted to strict matters of execution,Bankruptcy notice requiring payment to a foreign address
• Docket Number: Bankruptcy Petition No 1443 of 1991
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Nicholas Woo (Drew & Napier)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Cheah Kok Lim (Low Yeap & Co)

On 29 September 1989, the judgment creditors obtained a judgment in the High Court of New Zealand, Dunedin Registry, against the appellant for the sum of NZ$137,282 and interest at NZ$24,897.82. That judgment was subsequently registered at the Singapore High Court under the provisions of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 264) (`the RECJA`). A bankruptcy notice was later issued and served on the debtor. The stipulated place of payment was an address in New Zealand. The debtor having failed to comply with the notice, the judgment creditors filed a bankruptcy petition. The debtor asked for an adjournment of the petition and at the adjourned hearing, he tendered a cheque to the judgment creditors` solicitors. However, the cheque turned out to be defective. The debtor had yet to issue a fresh cheque and appealed against the deputy registar`s decision to grant the petition.

The first issue

The main question was whether a foreign judgment registered under the RECJA could form the basis for the issue of a bankruptcy notice. The consideration of this question of construction in turn called for the examination of the relationship between the RECJA and the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Cap 265) (`the REFJA`).

I shall therefore begin by referring to the s 3(3) of the RECJA, which states:

Where a judgment is registered under this section -

(a) the judgment shall, as from the date of registration, be of the same force and effect, and proceedings may be taken thereon, as if it had been a judgment originally obtained or entered upon the date of registration in the registering court;

(b) the registering court shall have the same control and jurisdiction over the judgment as it has over similar judgments given by itself, but in so far only as relates to execution under this section;

...

It should be noted that these provisions are substantially similar to those under the Judgments Extension Act 1868 (`the JEA`) of England. That Act was repealed, but English courts had considered its provisions in the 19th century cases of Re Watson and Re a Bankruptcy Notice .

The appellant relied on those authorities and contended for a narrow construction of s 3(3) of the RECJA. The main thrust of his submission was that para (b) of s 3(3) controlled the generality of para (a), such that the courts` jurisdiction over the enforcement of a judgment registered under the RECJA was limited to the execution of that judgment. Further, he argued that, although the issue of a bankruptcy notice is a means of enforcement, it is not a mode of execution within the ambit of s 3(3)(b).

Indeed, the English Court of Appeal favoured a restrictive interpretation of the relevant provisions of the JEA in Re Watson . That case concerned an Irish judgment which was registered pursuant to the JEA. When Watson failed to satisfy the judgment debt, his judgment creditors issued a judgment summons under s 5 of the Debtors Act 1869. The summons was for Watson to be examined on oath as to his ability to pay the debt and for him to show cause as to why he should not be committed to prison for his default.

Under s 1 of the JEA, a registered foreign judgment `shall from the date of such registration be of the same force and effect, and all proceedings shall and may be had and taken on such certificate, as if the judgment of which it is a certificate had been a judgment originally obtained or entered upon the date of such registration as aforesaid in the court in which it is so registered; ...`. Section 4 of the same Act provides that the registering court `shall have and exercise the same control and jurisdiction over any judgment ... and over any certificate of such judgment ... registered under this Act in such court as it now has and exercises over any judgment ... in its own court, but in so far only as relates to execution under this Act`.

In upholding Pollock B`s decision to dismiss the summons, the Court of Appeal held that s 4 had a limiting effect on the otherwise general provisions of s 1, such that the English courts had the same jurisdiction over registered Irish judgments as they had over English judgments `but so far only as relates to execution`. Further, the procedure by judgment summons under the Debtors Act 1869 was not a mode of execution within the meaning of the JEA.

The decision in Re Watson was followed in Re a Bankruptcy Notice , a case which concerned a Scottish judgment registered under the JEA. The creditor had applied for a bankruptcy notice to be issued against the debtor, but the application which was based on the registered judgment was refused. On appeal, the Court of...