JUDGMENT

Zulkifli Bakar J:

Background

[1] This is an appeal by judgment debtors against my decision made on 27 November 2008 wherein I dismissed the application by judgment debtors under encl. 37 with costs to be taxed unless otherwise agreed. Enclosure 37 is an application for an order that the registration under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Act, 1958 (Act 99) of the judgment dated 18 October 2005 of the court of first instance, High court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (hereinafter referred as "the judgment") be set aside.

Brief Facts And Chronology

[2] The background facts leading to this action by the judgment creditors are these. On 18 October 2005, the judgment creditor obtained judgment in default of appearance against the judgment debtors in the court of first instance, High court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. On 13 December 2006, the judgment creditor obtained an order for registration of the judgment at the High court of Sabah and Sarawak at Kota Kinabalu.

Judgment Debtor's Submissions

Reasons To Set Aside The Judgment

[3] Overall, there are five reasons submitted by judgment debtors to justify their application, ie:

(a) Judgment debtors are incorporated in Malaysia. Judgment debtor were neither carrying on business nor ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction of the original court at Hong Kong. They also do not have a place of business or any assets in Hong Kong.

(b) Judgment debtors did not voluntarily or submit to the jurisdiction of the original court.

(c) The accident which caused the alleged injuries to the judgment creditor occurred at the premises of the judgment debtor in Sabah, Malaysia.

(d) Enforcement of judgment would be contrary to public policy in Malaysia.

(e) Proceedings instituted by judgment creditor to register the judgment of a foreign court is time-barred under s. 3, Part II of the Limitation Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 72).

Judgment Creditor's Submissions

[4] On the contrary, judgment creditor submitted as follows;

(a) Judgment creditor admitted that judgment debtors do not have an office in Hong Kong. However, they do actively solicit business in Hong Kong by cooperating with travel agencies in Hong Kong to patronize the integrated resort owned by the judgment debtors and where the accident took place.

(b) Substantial part of damages arising from the accident was sustained by judgment creditor in Hong Kong even though the accident which cause injuries occurred at Sabah. For example, judgment debtor was hospitalized in Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong for 39 days since 10 August 2000. (ie, four days after the accident).

(c) As for forum of convenience, there were four eye-witnesses to the accident, two of whom resided and still reside in Hong Kong and it was not really possible for judgment creditor to attend trial in Malaysia since having regard to the injuries that he had suffered and the various treatments which he received after the accident.

(d) This case could be tried more expeditiously and economically in Hong Kong because of the existence of a special procedural regime governing personal injury action in the High court of Hong Kong.

(e) There is not a reason for impeaching a foreign judgment on grounds of public policy.

Findings Of The court

[5] I now deal with the issues as follows:

(a) Whether requirement under s. 5(1)(a) Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 ("REJA") has been satisfied before the registration can be set aside and whether condition under s. 5(2)(a) of REJA must be fulfilled for registration of foreign judgment.

(b) Whether judgment debtor should apply at Hong Kong court when they want to dispute Hong Kong court since it is not a convenient forum to try this matter.

(c) Whether there is a forum shopping on the part of judgment creditor to unjustly profit from his alleged misfortune.

(d) Whether enforcement of the said judgment would be contrary to public policy.

(e) Whether by resorting to the Hong Kong court as the forum to try this case, the