Back
2023 MarsdenLR 1259
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TAN SOO TUAN – Appellant
Versus
TANG TECK SENG – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24-6-01-2022]
A defendant must timely challenge jurisdiction in the original court; failing to do so undermines attempts to set aside a registered foreign judgment.
Headnote:(A) Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 - Section 5 - Rules of Court 2012 - Application to set aside registration of foreign judgment - Defendant argued that Singapore judgment should be set aside based on forum non conveniens and lack of submission to jurisdiction - Court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate any grounds under Section 5(1)(a) of REJA - The defendant should have challenged jurisdiction in Singapore Court, not after default judgment was entered. (Paras 8, 11, 12, 19, 40, 42)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff and a friend were injured in an accident in Johor involving a vehicle owned by the defendant. A consent judgment was reached in Malaysia, and the plaintiff later obtained a judgment in Singapore against the defendant, which the defendant sought to set aside.
Findings of Court:
The defendant did not establish grounds to set aside the registration of the Singapore Judgment, indicating the importance of timely jurisdictional challenges.
Issues: The main issues included whether the defendant submitted to Singapore's jurisdiction and if the enforcement of the Singapore Judgment violated Malaysian public policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the defendant's failure to engage with the Singapore proceedings undermined their application to set aside the judgment, highlighting the necessity of addressing jurisdictional disputes at the original court.
Result: Application dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. defendant's application to set aside judgment. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 19) |
| 3. jurisdiction and forum non conveniens considerations. (Para 13 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. plaintiff's argument on jurisdiction and response. (Para 22 , 24 , 26) |
| 5. court's analysis of procedural objections. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 34) |
| 6. court's stance on foreign jurisdiction. (Para 36 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. final ruling on the application. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
[1] The brief facts of the case are as follows.
[2] On 5 October 2017, the plaintiff, a Singaporean and his friend, one Tan Kah Ann ("Kah Ann"), were involved in an accident with a vehicle driven by the defendant at Jalan Masai Lama, Johor Bahru.
[3] As a result of the accident, the plaintiff and Kah Ann suffered from injuries.
[4] On 7 May 2019, Kah Ann filed an action against the defendant and one Chan Loong Nee ("Loong Nee") at the Johor Bahru Sessions Court in Suit No: JA-B53KJ-05/2019 ("the JB Suit"). Loong Nee is the registered owner of the vehicle No JGJ 8431. A consent judgment was recorded by the parties on 27 September 2020 in the following manner:
(a) Defendan-defendan hendaklah membayar kepada Plaintif wang sejumlah RM400,000.00 sahaja sebagai Gantirugi Am dan Khas termasuk faedah; dan
(b) Defendan-defendan hendaklah membayar kos tindakan ini sebanyak RM40,000.00 sahaja sebagai penyelesaian penuh dan muktamad.
[5] On 2 October 2020, the plaintiff elected to commence an action against the defendant at the Singapore High Court through Messrs Niru & Co LLC ("Messrs Niru").
[6] On 31 December 2020, the plaintiff obtained a judgment in default ("JID") against the defendant at the Singapore High Court. Subsequently, the assessment of damages was conducted and on 30 July 2021, the Singapore High Court issued an order on quantum, which inter alia are as follows ("the Singapore Judgment"):
(1) The defendant do pay the plaintiff the sum of S$107,527.11, together with the interest at the rate of 5.33% per annum on the sum of S$20,000.00 from the date of the service of the Writ being 2 December 2020 to the date of this Judgment and interest at the rate of 2.67% per annum on the sum of S$87,527.11 from the date of the accident being 5 October 2017 to the date of this Judgment.
(2) The Defendant to pay the Plaintiff costs fixed at S$15,000.00.
[7] On 16 February 2022, the Singapore Judgment was registered by an order made by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar ("SAR") of this Court. Since the order made by the learned SAR was ex parte in nature, she had given the liberty to the defendant to set aside the same. Para 3 of the order states as follows:
3. Defendan bebas untuk memohon untuk mengenepikan pendaftaran tersebut dalam masa 14 hari daripada penyampaian notis pendaftaran tersebut ke atasnya di Malaysia menurut Aturan 67 Kaedah 7 Kaedah- Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 jika beliau mempunyai alasan untuk berbuat demikian.
The Application In Encl 6
[8] By an application in Encl 6, the defendant sought to set aside the registration of the Singapore Judgment. The application is anchored on s 5 of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ("REJA") and O 67 r 9 of the Rules of Court 2012 (" ROC "). For reference, s 5(1) of REJA is reproduced herein:
On an application in that behalf duly made by any party against whom a registered judgment may be enforced, the registration of the judgment:
(a) shall be set aside if the registering Court is satisfied:
(i) that the judgment is not a judgment to which this Part applies or was registered in contravention of this Act;
(ii) that the courts of the country of the original Court had no jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case;
(iii) that the judgment debtor, being the defendant in the proceedings in the original Court, did not (notwithstanding that process may have been duly served on him in accordance with the law of the country of the original Court) receive
