Enforcement of a foreign judgment is against Malaysian public policy if it conflicts with own legal principles on liability coverage.

Introduction

[1] AmGeneral Insurance Bhd, the defendant, has filed this originating summons to set aside the registration of the judgment of the High Court of Singapore dated 23 February 2018 in suit no HC/S 647/2016 ('Suit 647') which is in favour of the plaintiff.

[2] The defendant's application to set aside the said judgment is pursuant to s 5 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ('REJA 1958').

The Salient Facts

[3] The relevant facts in this application are the following:

(i) Liew Voon Fah ('Liew') was the owner of a motorcycle registered in Malaysia with registration No JGT 6125.

(ii) The insurance policy for the said motorcycle was provided by the defendant under policy no JVA0647209 which was for the period of 27 November 207 to 26 November 2008.

(iii) The said motor policy included mandatory coverage for third party liability but excluded liability for third party claims from pillion riders travelling on the motorcycle. This is provided in condition 5(c) of the exception of section B of the said policy which is as follows:

We will NOT pay for:

(c)... death or bodily injury to any person being carried in or upon or entering or getting on or alighting from Your Vehicle (unless he/she is required to be carried in or on Your Vehicle by reason of or in pursuance of his/her contract of employment with You and/or Your Authorised driver and/or his/her employer).

(iv) On 8 December 2007, Liew and his wife, Kho Siew Tai ('Kho') were on the way to work where Liew was riding the motorcycle and his wife as the pillion rider. However, while riding along Ayer Rajah Expressway in Singapore, they met with an accident where Kho sustained serious head injuries, including skull fractures and loss of brain tissue.

(v) On 16 July 2009, Kho commenced an action against Liew in High Court of Singapore claiming loss and damage suffered as the result of the accident. The action was registered as Suit 613 of 2009 ('Suit 613').

(vi) On 21 February 2011, the High Court gave judgment in favour of Koo where damages in the sum of $788,057.73 plus interest, costs and disbursement was awarded. This amount has not been paid by Liew until to date.

(vii) On 20 April 2010, the defendant, filed an originating summons in the High Court of Singapore, case No OS 383/2010 ('OS 383') for a declaration that the defendant was not liable for any damages payable by Liew in Suit 613. The defendant also sought an injunction to restrain Kho or Liew from making any claim against Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore ('MIBS').

(viii) MIBS has declined to be made as a party to the OS 383 when invited by the defendant by letter dated 21 April 2010.

(ix) On 2 July 2010, the originating summons filed by the defendant was dismissed.

(x) Next, on 26 April 2012, Kho filed an originating summons, case no 44 of 2012 ('OS 404') against MIBS for a declaration that MIBS is liable to satisfy the judgment debt obtained under Suit 613.

(xi) On 8 June 2012, MIBS filed an application to struck out the originating summons OS 404 or alternatively the said originating summons to be stayed pending the determination of another originating summons no 88 of 2011 ('OS 808'). The issue in this OS 808 is similar with OS 404 in which the High Court of Singapore had to determine whether MIBS or Pacific & Orient Insurance ('P & O') was liable to satisfy a judgment obtained by injured passengers and pillion riders against a driver of a Malaysian-registered motor vehicle who had a motor insurance policy with P & O.

(xii) The OS 404 then was stayed by the Court pending the decision of OS 808.

(xiii) On 4 October 2012, the High Court of Singapore in OS