A foreign judgment cannot be enforced in Malaysia without proving the defendant's relationship to the original judgment debtor, and acknowledgment of debt can reset limitation periods for claims.

(Enclosure 1)

Arziah Mohamed Apandi JC:

A. Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff is a foreign company having its business in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates ('UAE'). As a specialist contractor of building materials, the Plaintiff supplied materials to the company Pembinaan SPK Sdn Bhd-Abu Dhabi ('SPK-Abu Dhabi'). The company SPK-Abu Dhabi awarded 5 Letters of Awards to the Plaintiff for the supply of building materials in project development areas namely Al Reem Island, Al Raha Garden and Village 4 of Al Falah Community all of which are situated in Abu Dhabi. The works were completed by the Plaintiff but progressive payments were inconsistent from SPK-Abu Dhabi. To secure the amount owing, the Plaintiff and SPK-Abu Dhabi signed a Settlement Statement of Account for the balance outstanding of AED7,600,000.00.

[2] When SPK-Abu Dhabi failed to honour the settlement, the Plaintiff took to the courts in Abu Dhabi where a final judgment was obtained for the sum of AED7,719,567.00 and interest at 4% per annum calculated on the judgment sum from 22 January 2014 until full realization ('The Judgment'). The Judgment was dated 22 June 2014. Again, SPK- Abu Dhabi did not pay towards the Judgment. Hence, the Plaintiff took execution proceedings at the Abu Dhabi Execution Department vide Execution No 1982-2014-T Commercial-MR-T-AD ('Execution Bond').

[3] The Plaintiff managed to recover a sum of AED6,890,452.00 from SPK-Abu Dhabi leaving an outstanding balance of the judgment sum of AED1,890,453.49. By this time, the Plaintiff found out that SPK-Abu Dhabi had left Abu Dhabi and abandoned its business there. Due to this, the Plaintiff proceeded to make the claim against the Defendant on the same of cause of action as in the Judgment in the Malaysian jurisdiction.

[4] Both the Abu Dhabi Judgment and the Execution Bond are collectively referred to as the 'Abu Dhabi Judgment'.

B. The Originating Summons

[5] The Plaintiff filed the Originating Summons on 29 July 2022 ('OS') (Enclosure 1) with the Supporting Affidavit which was undated but filed on 11 August 2022 (Enclosure 3). The Plaintiff moved this Court on s 8 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (REJA 1958), O 67 and O 28 of the Rules of 2012 ('ROC'). In essence, the Plaintiff asks for an Order that judgment to be entered against the Defendant based on the Abu Dhabi Judgment on 22 June 2014 as follows:

a) The judgment sum of AED7,719,567.00 equivalent to RM9,375,659.49 (based on exchange rate 1.21 on 29 July 2022);

b) Defendant is required to pay the balance judgment sum of AED1,890,453.49 equivalent to RM2,294,896.06 (based on exchange rate 1.21 on 29 July 2022);

c) Interest at 4% p.a. on the balance judgment sum of AED1,890,453.49 equivalent to RM2,294,896.06 (based on exchange rate 1.21 on 29 July 2022); and

d) Costs.

[6] As the Plaintiff was unable to obtain the balance of the judgment sum in the UAE, the Plaintiff intends to enforce the Abu Dhabi Judgment in Malaysia by way of common law.

[7] The use of common law was not in the intitulement of the OS but stated in the body of the Plaintiff's Supporting Affidavit (paragraph 23 therein).

[8] Both parties exchanged affidavits namely the Defendant's Reply Affidavit dated 8 March 2023 (Enclosure 22), Plaintiff's Reply Affidavit dated 28 March 2023 (encl 27) and Defendant's Reply II Affidavit dated 19 April 2023 (Enclosure 29).

[9] In support to the OS, the Plaintiff contends that the Abu Dhabi Judgment is capable of registration pursuant to REJA 1958. It can be executed here in accordance with the procedure of the common law.

[10] The Defendant vehemently objected to the OS. The grounds being:

i) The OS is defective under O 7 r 3(1) ROC 2012 as the Plaintiff cannot apply REJA 1958 because the UAE is not a reciprocating country in the First Schedule. Hence, s 8 REJA 1958 is inapplicable. Also, O 67 ROC 2012 has no application to the OS.

ii) The OS is not supported by any affidavit. The undated Plaintiff's Supporting Affidavit does no