The court emphasized that timely compliance with court orders is crucial, and failure to provide cogent reasons for delay can result in dismissal of applications for extension of time.

JUDGMENT

Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J:

The Application

[1] On 7 November 2023, this Court registered a judgment of the Republic of Singapore ("the Singapore Judgment") on application via Originating Summons by the Judgment Creditor under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ("REJA"). The order registering the Singapore Judgment under O 67 r 5 of the Rules of 2012 ("the REJA Order"), inter alia, stated that an application may be made to set aside the said registration within 7 days of the service of the notice of registration of the Singapore judgment.

[2] The Judgment Debtor did not file any application to set aside the REJA Order within the stipulated time and to overcome this defect took out a notice of application (Enclosure 10) seeking an extension of time to file the application to set aside the REJA Order.

[3] On 2 October 2024, I dismissed the application for an extension of time. The reasons for my decision are stated below.

Background Facts

[4] On 20 June 2023, the Judgment Creditor had filed an Originating Claim against the Judgment Debtor in the High Court of Singapore vide Singapore Case No.: HC/OS 396/2023 ("the Singapore case"). The subject matter of the Singapore Case was the failure and/or refusal of the Judgment Debtor to pay an agreed sum of SGD10,000,000.00 pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated 25 January 2021 entered into by both parties.

[5] On 8 September 2023, the Judgment Creditor took out a summons for Summary Judgment on the settlement agreement. The application for Summary Judgment was opposed by the Judgment Debtor who was represented by counsel.

[6] On 25 October 2023, the High Court of Singapore entered summary judgment, ie, the Singapore Judgment against the Judgment Debtor. The Judgment Debtor did not appeal against the Singapore Judgment. This means that the Singapore Judgment is final and conclusive between the parties.

[7] On 15 November 2023, the Judgment Creditor filed this Originating Summons to register the Singapore Judgment as a judgment of the High Court of Malaya under REJA. On 7 December 2023, the Singapore Judgment was registered as a Judgment of the High Court of Malaya in which the principal sum due and owing amounted to RM34,821,000.00 upon conversion to the equivalent Malaysian currency ("the REJA Order").

[8] On 10 January 2024, the REJA Order and the Notice of Registration dated 29 December 2023 were served on the Judgment Debtor. The Judgment Debtor was said to have acknowledged receipt of these documents by signing on the Judgment Creditor's solicitors' letter dated 29 December 2023. Thus, the Judgment Debtor was under the REJA Order required to file his application to set aside the REJA Order on or before 17 January 2024.

[9] The Judgment Debtor only filed his application to set aside the REJA Order on 22 January 2024. The Judgment Debtor successfully opposed the application to set aside and accordingly, I dismissed the application.

Application To Extend Time

[10] The application before me is to extend the time for the Judgment Debtor to file an application to set aside the REJA Order. The application was made under O 67 r 5(3) read with O 3 r 5 of the Rules of 2012. The principle to extend time is trite. In National Union of Bank Employees v. Director General of Trade Unions & Anor; [2013] 6 MLJ 167; [2013] 7 CLJ 957; [2013] 5 AMR 729, the Federal Court held that an extension of time is an exercise of discretion. Through case law, certain factors have been promulgated by the courts to assist in exercising this discretion, judiciously. The factors are:

(i) the delay in making an application;

(ii) whether cogent reasons are given by the litigant not to have made the application within the prescribed time;

(iii) the chances of succeeding in the proposed application to set aside/appeal; and

(iv) the likelihood and degree of prejudice, as well as injustice to the opposite party, should the Court exercise its discretion.

(see Saeed U Khan v. Lee Kok Hooi; [2001] 5